I think in terms of economics, vNM expected utility is closest to how we tend to think about utility/preferences. The problem with vNM (from our perspective) is that it assumes a coherent agent (i.e., an agent that satisfies the vNM axioms) but humans aren’t coherent, in part because we don’t know what our values are or should be. (“Humans don’t have utility functions” is a common refrain around here.) From academia in general, the approach that comes closest to how we tend to think about values is reflective equilibrium, although other meta-ethical views are not unrepresented around here.
For utility comparisons between people, I think a lot of thinking here have been based on or inspired by game theory, e.g., bargaining games.
Of course there is a lot of disagreement and uncertainty between and within individuals on LW, so specific posts may well be based on different foundations or are just informal explorations that aren’t based on any theoretical foundations.
In this post, Stuart seems to be trying to construct an extrapolated/synthesized (vNM or vNM-like) utility function out of a single human’s incomplete and inconsistent preferences and meta-preferences, which I don’t think has much of a literature in economics?
In this post, Stuart seems to be trying to construct an extrapolated/synthesized (vNM or vNM-like) utility function out of a single human’s incomplete and inconsistent preferences and meta-preferences
Indeed that’s what I’m trying to do. The reasons are that utility functions are often more portable (easier to extend to new situations) and more stable (less likely to change under self-improvement).
I think in terms of economics, vNM expected utility is closest to how we tend to think about utility/preferences. The problem with vNM (from our perspective) is that it assumes a coherent agent (i.e., an agent that satisfies the vNM axioms) but humans aren’t coherent, in part because we don’t know what our values are or should be. (“Humans don’t have utility functions” is a common refrain around here.) From academia in general, the approach that comes closest to how we tend to think about values is reflective equilibrium, although other meta-ethical views are not unrepresented around here.
For utility comparisons between people, I think a lot of thinking here have been based on or inspired by game theory, e.g., bargaining games.
Of course there is a lot of disagreement and uncertainty between and within individuals on LW, so specific posts may well be based on different foundations or are just informal explorations that aren’t based on any theoretical foundations.
In this post, Stuart seems to be trying to construct an extrapolated/synthesized (vNM or vNM-like) utility function out of a single human’s incomplete and inconsistent preferences and meta-preferences, which I don’t think has much of a literature in economics?
Indeed that’s what I’m trying to do. The reasons are that utility functions are often more portable (easier to extend to new situations) and more stable (less likely to change under self-improvement).