Hold on, computationally cheap is not the same as biased.
You’re right; I’m being sloppy with the word “bias,” partly to make that point. The heuristics I’m interested in for that section aren’t heuristics that are merely efficient, but heuristics that sacrifice accuracy for computational cheapness. “Just buy whatever you got last time” is not a good recipe for getting good detergent, because it doesn’t even ask how satisfied you were with the detergent! But when you’re in a hurry, increases in detergent quality are less valuable than the time it would take to get them.
Other options for sloppy but cheap heuristics would be things like “buy the detergent closest to the start of the aisle” or “buy the detergent with the prettiest packaging”- things that I would be willing to call “biased” in most senses of the word but wouldn’t call heuristics with negative instrumental value.
The heuristics I’m interested in for that section aren’t heuristics that are merely efficient, but heuristics that sacrifice accuracy for computational cheapness.
Ok, I see what you mean. Sounds like the difference between a bad bias and a good bias is whether the person realizes they’re sacrificing accuracy, and is consistent in dealing with the consequences of that.
Or maybe a better way to put it is: bad biases lose accuracy, good biases only lose precision.
You’re right; I’m being sloppy with the word “bias,” partly to make that point. The heuristics I’m interested in for that section aren’t heuristics that are merely efficient, but heuristics that sacrifice accuracy for computational cheapness. “Just buy whatever you got last time” is not a good recipe for getting good detergent, because it doesn’t even ask how satisfied you were with the detergent! But when you’re in a hurry, increases in detergent quality are less valuable than the time it would take to get them.
Other options for sloppy but cheap heuristics would be things like “buy the detergent closest to the start of the aisle” or “buy the detergent with the prettiest packaging”- things that I would be willing to call “biased” in most senses of the word but wouldn’t call heuristics with negative instrumental value.
Ok, I see what you mean. Sounds like the difference between a bad bias and a good bias is whether the person realizes they’re sacrificing accuracy, and is consistent in dealing with the consequences of that.
Or maybe a better way to put it is: bad biases lose accuracy, good biases only lose precision.
That is a beautiful way to put it.