The paper changed significantly in the re-write. 6-pages as conversation starter for the NDM conference. I'd still love to get your take if you are not too busy with your new book :). Especially since you introduced me to the Bordalo et al. paper which makes an appearance.

Here is the article jtpeterson.substack.com/p/psychology...

That may have been the intention. But at some point the medium became the message, and it seems biases became more important than heuristics. I'm not entirely sure how Kahneman felt about that shift.

Which is why John always emphasizes that there is no single correct answer when he does TDGs. The only thing that matters is that you bring good ideas to the table.

I've been getting more into military doctrine. My boss is John Schmitt who wrote War fighting, which is tactical doctrine for the Marines. I'm increasingly concerned there will be a need to know this stuff

So we're not mapping the non-ethical side. In some sense, what we're interested in is our ability to predict someone's ethical choices. But to do that, we have to know what ethical factors they consider. eg whether they are the perpetrator or the victim, long term quality of life, etc.

Not naive. It means something like "how much variance can we explain on the ethical side." But the problem is circular. We can explain the majority of the variance for the probes we've written. But are our probes comprehensively testing the reasons medics choose one patient over another?

Thanks for sharing. I follow some bioethicists, so am hoping one might chime in.

We've already done a first pass on the ethical factors, but now were being asked about whether we have sufficiently mapped the decision space. And that is a hard question that I don't really know how to answer

I read somewhere that one hamburger is about 10,000 queries worth of water and electricity. But I'm not sure how many queries are worth one unit of Jared

It's one of the best subtitles of all time. And given that I've worked in both traditions, it seemed appropriate

In fact, here's a thread from @aleximas.bsky.social where he talks a bit about it. There was also a recent paper on Loss Aversion that has people asking whether it is dead (Decisions under risk are decisions under complexity), which is part of the Cognitive Turn, as I understand it.

There's a paper called "The Cognitive Turn in Behavioral Economics" which is the only reference I really know of. Outside of that, it's mostly stuff I just pick up on BlueSky here and there

Anyways, merry Christmas. Make sure to get in your annual LoTR marathon in before the end of the year. It embodies the spirit of Christmas in a way few other works do.

6/

Many non LOTR characters could have resisted the ring for minutes or even years. But I have yet to see anyone mention someone who could toss it in the fire. Only someone who knows true redeeming love could have succeeded at the quest, and only then by losing their life for the one they love

5/

If Sam had been able to see and accept the change in Smeagol, Smeagol may have been redeemed.

And at the end, pulled between the ring and his love for Frodo, unable to give up the ring, but compelled by love, Smeagol may have "voluntarily cast himself into the fire" in a final act of love

4/