Only an idiot would pay more than $20 to play this game. You'd have to get tails 5 in a row in order to not lose any money... chances of you losing money is 97%.
I wonder if these mental models can be aquired naturally through our interaction within society? If so, it's easy to see how some mental models don't adapt to well to a more complex society.
Excellent content. This reminds me of The Marshmallow Experiment. So, when it comes to immediate 'reward', the positive response could be because either the loss is irrelevant or the reward is a one and only opportunity (risky choice). I wonder what drives an individual to commit a crime in exchange of a short term reward even facing a high risk of punishment. Thanks for sharing.
This is quite a misleading talk, yeah include confounding variables with a fake dataset to make something look better. Tha fact is these methods have very little real world incremental value, most of the value goes towards resume embellishment. The data does not lie, you just have to look at it in the right way for your case with any method
While the video might not be particularly useful beyond pointing out the existence of and reasoning for bayesian causal inference, your comment is entirely useless. The data lies all the time. And what do you even mean by looking "at it in the right way for your case with any method"? Gibberish. Simulated data is being used to show that this approach is independent of problems that arise in a given research domain. It is not fake data. It is simply simulated.
Great video and explanation. You have a new subscriber. But I wonder, why aren't you posting more often? There's a deep need for intelligent people who understand what they are talking about to create more content. Otherwise, we're lost in the garbage that the modern world pushes on people.
Thanks very much for the kind comment. I'm not posting more videos (on this topic) because I left academia to join industry. That said I am trying to keep up the good work through blog posts and the occasional industry talk :)
Hi Ben, I am from India. I am a student of TISS, and I am doing a master's degree in the Library and Information Science from TISS. Thank you for this information❤
Hi, Im a Masters researcher and my thesis combining double coding theory and autism spectrum disorder. I would like to communicate with you about some of the questions I have in mind about the theory. Does your time allow for this discussion and do you have an account on social media?
To be fair: if you spin the Ball on the ground then.yes the model is correct, but if you spin it in the air parallel to the earth then the curve is correct. I guess they kept that in mind.
i dont get it so if you win with heads does that not mean you lose your money on tails requiring you to double down on the bet instead of it doubling the prize?
I dont believe that marginal utility can be negative. Actually, owning a good or a service does not mean that we have to consume it (for instance, owning or buying many cookies does not necessarily imply that we will have to eat all of them). So, I think the lowest possible value of MU is zero. Why do we need to assume that rational individuals would literally consume the good or service if they know, ex ante, that it would harm them or decrease their satisfaction level !!!
Hey Ayman, interesting point of view which I totally agree with, but only in this example. I like the idea of the distinction between consumption and owning. But think about this hypothetical situation. What if you live in an area where robbery is very common, that owning a good bike would make it more likely to be stolen. Or another example is owning too many of a cheap product, above than your need, that it would be a burden to store it. These are just some examples that came to my mind when I thought about your comment. I understand that one might say in the first example the
@@omarghanem256 Well, the basic idea of utility function is simply a function that measures the level of satisfaction of a household when "consuming" different quantities of good(s). Now, the problem is how do we understand the word "consumption": is it possible that consuming too much of a certain good can decrease the well-being of a consumer? well, I can see that the answer can be "yes" when we think that consuming can mean "eating" too much of certain food, or storing too many cars or going too many times to the cinema... But from an economic point of view, I have hard time to see it that way, as I understand consuming as owning! So owning too many cars should not be a problem for many reasons. First, I can simply give them for free :). Second, in a multiperiod context, I can sell them. Have you ever encountered any altruistic person who would refuse to get too many units of any good or service for free in the sense where he would say : no give me just 5 cars, I dont need 100 (for free of course :) ). By the way, I have never seen a utility function in a published economic paper where the the mathematical function representing the utility function is decreasing at any level.
