There is a type of acting without thinking that considers the behavior of others to be illogicality. For example, suppose there was a bet that had a 1/3 chance of gaining 4 and a 2/3 chance of losing 1. Person A thinks that it is reasonable to make this bet because the expected value is positive. And interprets person B, who does not place bets, as being irrational. This interpretation brings no useful development. It is just a thought process. Related: Fundamental attribution error. image There could be a discrepancy in perception of β€œa bet that has a 1/3 chance of gaining 4 and a 2/3 chance of losing 1.” Suppose, for example, Mr. B values his self-perception that he has never failed at -2. In that case, he would be better off not making this bet, since -2 would be incurred upon failure. In other words, this is a phenomenon in which different people have different values, and therefore, even if each person makes a rational decision, the solutions they come up with are different.

image

The same is true for the Observation range. When a red person with a narrower range of observation tries to head for the nearest minima, a person with a wider range of observation may think that it is irrational, even though it would be better to cross the mountain. However, this is also due to the difference in the range of observation, and it is erroneous to attribute this to the individual β€œthe red person is irrational. image If people in blue are unaware of the possibility that their range of observation is also limited, then relativization would be deficient. image

relevance - Differences in axiomatic systems - Learning through dialogue


This page is auto-translated from /nishio/δ»–δΊΊγ‚’ιžεˆη†ηš„γ¨γ™γ‚‹ζ€θ€ƒεœζ­’ using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.