Hacker News Reader

This only holds in convex payoff distributions where risk has a positive expected value.

In concave payoff distributions, where risk has a negative expected value, inaction is favored.

Why this should depend on convexity at all? The study’s premise is marginal benefit, i.e., estimated risk difference is either minimal or perhaps too poorly known to call it out as marginal. If it was known to be positive or negative, action should be obvious. I am not defending this study because authors seem to rely heavily on survey where participants satisfaction measured only after 6 months. Typically, people tend to comfort themselves in short term for making big decisions such as divorce or job change even though in longer run they may higher accumulated regret. Economists need to develop good models instead of just keep doing surveys.

Immeasurable model risk

When convex this is good When concave this is bad So if all else is equal, the convexity breaks the tie.

> Typically, people tend to comfort themselves in short term for making big decisions such as divorce or job change

What about "buyer's remorse" and "honeymoon period"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com