Does the original paper claim that all subjects use the same mechanism for mirrors and risk? I for one would certainly maximize value for mirrors. This does not imply that I would maximize *expected* value for risk, where I may apply some quick heuristics (rather than revealing my "preferences").

Yes, exactly! I also think there are other (implicit) assumptions in the comment: the normative content of "more is better" is equated with "more in expectation is better", which for me does not follow. I will keep an eye out for this debate: for me, the question is not settled.

People refused to calculate 30% of 20 GBP. I got angry emails asking me to "warn people if advanced math skills are required" [sic!]. This is very different from not understanding the payoff mechanism. I think this warrants a closer look, but we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I told you something about my instuctions: they were in English. And yes, the subjects spoke English. The entire point of the paper is that these are mistakes---just not mistakes about the payoff mechanism. But I suppose that nobody reads more than 300 signs anymore ...

The whole point of the paper is that these are mistakes. I have actually tried extensively to make mirrors disappear: people refuse to calculate the values even when you give them direct feedback that you want them to do this. And please: stick to serious arguments if you want to have a debate.

I am not sure the comment really shows what it claims. The argument rests on an interpretation of wrong answers in the quiz as misunderstanding of the incentive structure. If this stems from a failure to engage with the problem more generally, then the original point stands.