you want most of that population to be well off even if it means lower average earnings.
This also comes up in the paradox pointed out by Ole Peters, that if offered a repeated 50% chance to either increase your bankroll by 50% or decrease it by 40%, if you chase the expected money then you almost certainly lose almost everything. Your possible enormous profit is concentrated into a smaller and smaller sliver of the space of possible outcomes.
How would you bet?
ETA: I see that Taleb mentions Peters (favourably) near the end of the video linked in Hallgren’s comment above..
I honestly don’t understand what high multiples of my current utility would look like. So barring a better understanding of how my preferences and the world interact I’d have to pass (or claim that the game is confused) even if the game was advertised as playing for utilons and not just money.
This also comes up in the paradox pointed out by Ole Peters, that if offered a repeated 50% chance to either increase your bankroll by 50% or decrease it by 40%, if you chase the expected money then you almost certainly lose almost everything. Your possible enormous profit is concentrated into a smaller and smaller sliver of the space of possible outcomes.
How would you bet?
ETA: I see that Taleb mentions Peters (favourably) near the end of the video linked in Hallgren’s comment above..
I honestly don’t understand what high multiples of my current utility would look like. So barring a better understanding of how my preferences and the world interact I’d have to pass (or claim that the game is confused) even if the game was advertised as playing for utilons and not just money.
Assume the game is offered for money and utility is never mentioned. Do you play?
Tempting, but nah.