Professor Goodman's conversation with Dan Gilbert (linked here) was an interesting exploration of the ideas surrounding the role of human psychology in making predictions. The sure-thing principle is an idea meaning that a guaranteed outcome is better than a likely outcome even if the guaranteed outcome technically makes you less well off. The most surprising thing to me from the conversation was that experimental outcomes involving the sure-thing principle are considered "weird outcomes". Of course, I understand Professor Goodman and Dan Gilbert actually mean that the outcomes are just not what you would calculate mathematically or logically. However, I would argue that those sure-thing outcomes should be expected because of traditional human logic that is consistent through generations. This logic is evident in a few adages that I was familiar with growing up: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" or "The grass isn't always greener on the other side." Despite humans' ability to calculate the "best" option in a decision, traditional thinking interferes.
top of page
bottom of page