[HN Gopher] We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model ___________________________________________________________________ We don't have a hundred biases, we have the wrong model Author : salonium_ Score : 86 points Date : 2022-07-21 17:14 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.worksinprogress.co) (TXT) w3m dump (www.worksinprogress.co) | mstipetic wrote: | 40% of US believes the earth was created in the last 10,000 | years. Any model relying on rationality has no chance here | twawaaay wrote: | We have some wrong models but this does not mean we don't have | biases. | | The simplest way to disprove it: | | If we did not have biases but wrong models, fixing models would | make us unbiased. | | But that works very rarely in real life. | leobg wrote: | My reading of the article is an application of Chesterton's Fence | to so-called cognitive biases. Not to see them as a mere defect, | or proof of our fallibility. But to instead look for the | objective for which they perhaps truly are the most reasonable | solution. | | Example from the article: | | > Many costly signals are inherently wasteful. Money, time, or | other resources are burnt. And wasteful acts are the types of | things that we often call irrational. A fancy car may be a | logical choice if you are seeking to signal wealth, despite the | harm it does to your retirement savings. Do you need help to | overcome your error in not saving for retirement, or an | alternative way to signal your wealth to your intended audience? | You can only understand this if you understand the objective. | hirundo wrote: | For instance we have a neural-cognitive "bias" toward | recognizing moving versus stationary objects. Our attention is | prejudiced in favor of things-that-move. This is useful when it | comes to detecting potential predators, prey, mates, etc. So a | lack of a bias can be a defect to the economic actor. | nine_k wrote: | Conspicuous consumption can be rational, or at least beneficial | in the evolutionary sense. | | If you are a lawyer with a good practice, you are expected to | drive a nice large car. If you drove a battered old economy- | class car, your clients might see it as a sign that something | is wrong with you (there are several plausible ideas) and shun | dealing with you. There go fat fees and investment savings. | csours wrote: | I'm not sure I understand. It seems like the author is looking | for "learned behavior" as the model for human decision making. | [deleted] | throw93232 wrote: | >> epicycles were still not enough to describe what could be | observed. | | Epicycles based models were far superior in practice, such as | predicting planetary conjunctions. Heliocentric models did not | really catched up, until Newton invented gravity and calculus. | | And centre of mass of solar system (barycenter in Newtonian | physics), is outside of Sun, so heliocentric models technically | never gave solid predictions! Stellar parallax (main prediction | from Copernicus theory) was not confirmed until 19th century! | Heliocentrism is mainly philosophical concept! | | I will stick with my primitive old thinking and biases, thank | you! If I get mugged a few times in a neighbourhood, I will | assume it is not safe. There is no need to overthink it! | croes wrote: | Invented gravity? | dataflow wrote: | They probably mean invented gravity as a formal concept, not | as a physical phenomenon. | | Like, say, the invention of the number 0. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0 | deckeraa wrote: | Agreed. | | Prior to Newton's conception of gravity as objects | attracting one another, the primary model used was the | Aristotelian one, in which things tended to go to the | "zone" where they belong. Things composed of earth (like a | rock) tended to sink towards the center of the earth, while | things composed of fire or air tended to rise towards the | sky. | throw93232 wrote: | English is not my native language obviously. | andrewflnr wrote: | Not at all obvious, you did fine. | smegsicle wrote: | gravity is a notation for describing and predicting an | arbitrary subset of natural processes | | you might as well contest that he invented calculus | zwkrt wrote: | I would normally be skeptical of an article that starts with a | description of epicycles because it probably means that | whatever is going to be described next is totally bullshit. | | In this case I'm not so sure. As a plebeian normie, it seems | like the "rational actor" model of economics has a lot of | problems. | | Now I do believe that All people are All of the time trying to | achieve their goals and meet their needs as can best be | achieved in the given situation and in the way that they best | know how. | | But this includes a junkie digging through trash for things to | sell, a housewife poisoning her abusive husband, and a | schizophrenic blowing up mailboxes to stop an international | plot against her. It includes a recent widower staying in bed | for two weeks. It certainly includes your exclusion of an | entire neighborhood and its thousands of inhabitants from your | care due to some harrowing experiences. | | As I understand it, most economists, and certainly the ones | that influence policy, are not really thinking of these things | as "rational". To them rational means "increasing your own | wealth or exchanging your money in the most efficient and | expedient way possible". And that's very good because this is | the way that corporations and rich people that hire people to | manage their money effectively operate. But it doesn't really | work for normal people in normal situations. Our lack of | information about our surroundings and our incredibly wide | array of emotional states doesnt leave a lot of room for | rationality. | | I won't really expound on it because this is already so long, | but having a single definition of rationality also excludes any | possibility of having an informed multicultural viewpoint. | throw93232 wrote: | People are rational, model works. | | But you can not approximate complex system like human brain | with couple of variables. There are not hundreds, but | millions of biases. | | Advanced epicycle models had dozens moving parts. JPL | planetary ephemerides (modern equivalent in polynomials) have | several millions of parameters and terabytes of equations. | JoshCole wrote: | If you apply the cognitive biases model to algorithms which have | superhuman performance in various games - like AlphaZero, | DeepBlue, Pluribus, and so on - the natural result is to conclude | that these models are predictably irrational. The reason you get | this conclusion is because it turns out to be necessary to trade | off theoretical optimal answers for the sake of speed. The | behavioral economic view of human irrationality ought to be | considered kind of dumb in view of that result. But it is | actually so much worse than that for the field, because the math | shows that sacrificing optimality for speed would be something | that even an infinitely fast computational intelligence would be | _forced_ to do. It isn 't irrational; it is a fundamentally | necessary tradeoff. In imperfect information games your strategy | space is continuous, EV is a function of policy, and many games | even have continuous action spaces. If you thought Go was high | branching factor you thought wrong; Go is an example of a | freakishly low branching factor. It is infinitely smaller than | the branching factor in relatively trivial decision problems. | | If you've never looked at cognitive biases through the lens of | performance optimization you should try it. What seems like an | arbitrary list from the bias perspective becomes clever | approximative techniques in the performance optimization | perspective. | | I often think about why this isn't more commonly known among | people who call themselves rationalists and tend to spend a lot | of time discussing cognitive bias. They seem to be trending | toward a belief that general superintelligence is of infinite | power, doubling down on their fallacious and hubristic | appreciation for the power of intelligence. | | I say this, because when you apply the algorithms that don't have | these biases - the behavioral economist view wouldn't find them | to be irrational since they stick to the math, they follow things | like the coherence principles for how we ought to work with | probabilities as seen in works by Jayne, Finett, and so on - they | either don't terminate, or, if you force them to do so... well... | they lose to humans; even humans who aren't very good at the | task. | bobthechef wrote: | It sound like you're talking about, or at least brushing up | against, prudential judgement[0]. Sometimes, the optimal move | is not to seek the optimum. | | An obvious class of problems is where determining the optimum | takes more time than the lifetime of the problem. Say you need | to write an algorithm at work that does X, and you need X by | tomorrow. If it would take you a week to find the theoretical | optimum, then the optimum in a "global" sense is to deliver the | best you can within the constraints, not the abstract | theoretical optimum. The time to produce the solution is part | of the total cost. An imprudent person would either say it's | not possible, or never deliver the solution in time. | | [0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12517b.htm | Barrin92 wrote: | >why this isn't more commonly known among people who call | themselves rationalists | | because most of these people do nothing else but writing blogs | about rationalism. Same reason university tests are sometimes | so removed from practicality compared to evaluation criteria in | business, the people who make them do nothing else but write | these tests. | | I suspect if you put some rationalists into the trenches in the | Donbass for a week they'd quickly have a more balanced view of | what's needed to solve a problem besides rational | contemplation. | snovv_crash wrote: | The thing about continuous space solutions is that they are | typically differentiable, which means you can use a gradient | descent or LM optimization rather than needing to fully explore | the solution space. Typically there are large regions which are | heuristically excludable, which is what you are getting at I | think, but even an unbiased sampling plus gradient descent | often makes problems much more tractable than discrete | problems. | whimsicalism wrote: | Only if the local optima are good. | JoshCole wrote: | The type of learning problem where I agree with your point is | in something like learning how to classify hand written | digits. My point about the continuous nature being | unsearchable in practice is about recursive forms - if I | choose this policy, my opponent will choose to _react_ to the | fact that I had that policy. | | In your learning problem where thing were made tractable by | differentiation you have something like an elevation map that | you are following, but in the multi-stage decision problem | you have something more like a fractal elevation map. When | you want to know the value of a particular point on the | elevation map you have to look for the highest point or the | lowest point on the elevation map you get by zooming in on | the area which is the resultant of your having chosen a | particular policy. | | The problem is that since this is a multi-agent environment | they can react to your policy choice. So they can for example | choose to have you get a high value only if you have the | correct password entered on a form. That elevation map is | designed to be a plain everywhere and another fractal zoom | corresponding with a high utility or a low error term only at | the point where you enter the right password. | | Choose a random point and you aren't going to have any | information about what the password was. The optimization | process won't help you. So you have to search. One way to do | that is to do a random search; if you do that you eventually | find a differing elevation - assuming one exists. But what if | there were two passwords - one takes you to a low elevation | fractal world that corresponds with a low reward because it | is a honeypot. The other takes you to the fractal zoom where | the elevation map is conditioned on you having root access to | the system. | | This argument shows us that we actually would need to search | over every point to get the best answer possible. Yet if we | do that we have to search over the entire continuous | distribution for our policy. Since by definition there are an | infinite number of states a computer with infinite search | speed can't enumerate them; there is another infinite fractal | under every policy choice that also needs full enumeration. | We have non-termination by a diagonalization argument for a | computer that has infinite speed. | | Now observe that in our reality passwords exist. Less extreme | - notice that reacting to policy choice in general, for | example, moving out of the way of a car that drives toward | you but not changing the way you would walk if it doesn't, | isn't actually an unusual property in decision problems. It | is normal. | brrrrrm wrote: | > apply the cognitive biases model to algorithms which have | superhuman performance in various games | | Could you give an example of this? | JoshCole wrote: | I think approaching it in this direction is horrible because | it directs attention to the wrong things; when you look at | specific examples you're always in a _more specific | situation_ and if you 're in a _more specific situation_ it | means that your situation is _more computationally tractable_ | than the _general situation_ which was being handled by the | algorithm. So trying to focus on examples is actually going | to give you weird inversions where the rules that applied in | general don 't apply to the specific situation. | | You need to come about it from the opposite direction - from | the problem descriptions to the necessary constraints on your | solution. | | That said, there are so many examples that I feel kind of | overwhelmed. Starting with biases that start with A: | | - Anthropic bias | | The algorithms have this tendency. They use counterfactual | reasoning to determine that assuming a nash player alike to | them is their opponent when making their decisions. Sometimes | they don't have a nash opponent, but they persist in this | assumption anyway. In the cognitive bias framing this | tendency is error. In the game theoretic framing this | corresponds with minimizing the degree to which you would be | exploited. You can find times where the algorithm plays | against something that isn't nash and so it was operating | according to a flawed model. You can call it biased for | assuming that others operated according to that flawed model. | From a complexity perspective this assumption lets you drop | an infinite number of continuous strategy distributions from | consideration - with strong theoretical backing for why it | won't hurt you to do so - since nash is optimal according to | some important metrics. | | - Attentional bias | | The tendency to pay attention to some things and not other | things. Some examples of times where we do that are with | alpha beta pruning. You can find moves that involve sacrifice | that show the existence of this bias. The conceit in the | cognitive bias framing is that it is stupid because some of | the things might be important. The justification is that it | some things are more promising than others and we have | limited computational budget. Better to stop exploring the | things which are not promising since they are not promising | and direct efforts to where they are promising. Something | like an upper confidence bound tree search in the cognitive | bias model would turn balancing the explore exploit dynamic | as part of approximating the nash equillibrium into erroneous | reasoning because it doesn't choose to explore everything is | an example of the lesser form of anchoring effects as they | relate to attentional bias. It weights the action values | according to the promising rollout more highly. | | - Apophenia | | Hashing techniques are used to reduce dimensionality. There | is an error term here but you gain faster reasoning speed. | Seen in blueprint abstraction; that we're hasing down to | something using similarity to help bucket similar things | gives rise to things like selective attention (another bias, | and kind of related to this general category of bias). | | Jumping ahead to something like confirmation bias the | heuristic that all these algorithms are using are flawed in | various ways. They see that they are flawed after a node | expansion and update their beliefs, but they don't update the | heuristic. In fact if a flawed heuristic was working well | such that it won we would have greater confidence rather than | lesser confidence in the bias. | toomim wrote: | I wrote a PhD dissertation that made this point in 2013, _and_ | proposed a new "helocentric" economic model. | | The key shift is to move the utility function from evaluating a | future state of the world to evaluating the utility of an | opportunity for attention in _the present moment_. | | All the "cognitive errors" that we humans make are with respect | to predicting the future. But we all know what we find appealing | in the present moment. | | And when we look at economics from this new perspective of the | present, we get an economics of _attention_. We can measure, and | model, for the first time, how we choose how to allocate the | scarce resource of the internet age: human attention. | | I dropped out of academia as soon as I finished this work, and | never publicized it broadly within academia, but I still believe | it has great potential impact for economics, and it would be | great to get the word out. | | https://invisible.college/attention/dissertation.html | snapcaster wrote: | Thanks for sharing this. Very interesting idea | toomim wrote: | Thank you for saying so! | phkahler wrote: | >> All the "cognitive errors" that we humans make are with | respect to predicting the future. But we all know what we find | appealing in the present moment. | | I like to say that most human problems are a result of the | conflict between short and long term goals. This is true at all | levels from individuals to small groups, companies, and states. | Many, many "failures" can be framed this way. I would say it's | not even a problem of predicting the future (thought that is an | issue) but of failure to prioritize the future over the | present. | just_boost_it wrote: | I'm not so sure about this. I'm not an expert at all, but I can | see in the world around me that biases are real. Sure, heuristics | are important in the trade off between accuracy and speed, so I | see that they are necessary. However, isn't the problem that we | use the same heuristics to bet on a coin flip as we would use to | bet on whether we make it past a lion to safety? It seems like | the "right" is model is only correct in a small number of cases, | but we can't change our unconscious biases to fit the situation. | It seems that the bias model explains why we make bad decisions | in many areas of our lives. | jjk166 wrote: | The rational actor model assumes that a person will behave | optimally - using all information available to make and carry out | the best decision possible for their goals. | | I strongly suspect that a better model is that people instead of | optimizing their outcomes instead optimize the ease of decision | making while still getting an acceptable course of action. Most | of our biases serve to either allow us to make decisions quicker | or minimize the odds of catastrophically bad outcomes for our | decisions, which fit nicely with this model. The fact is that | indecision is often worse than a bad decision, and the | evolutionary forces that shaped our brains are stochastic in | nature and thus don't dock points for missed opportunities. | canjobear wrote: | This is "bounded rationality" [1], where people make the best | decisions possible given computational constraints on how they | make decisions. A lot of interesting work tries to derive human | cognitive biases from this idea. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality | spacebanana7 wrote: | The idea you're describing sounds similar to Satisficing Theory | [1]. I agree this approach does a much better job of describing | real life decision making than the traditional rational actor | model. Unfortunately, Satisficing rarely gets discussed (at | least in my experience) in mainstream economics/psychology, | despite having been around since the 1950s. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing | beefman wrote: | No mention of ergodicity economics, which resolves a lot of this. | Reinforcement learning was mentioned, which resolves all or | nearly all of it. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-21 23:00 UTC)