Hacker News Reader

Comment by msluyter | Hacker News Reader

Perhaps the joke is that the valence of going backward or forward isn't equivalent. IIRC, some studies show that people will generally accept smaller gains to avoid the possibility of loss. Eg, loss has a greater (negative) emotional impact than equivalent (positive) gains.

View on HN

> I don't think it's reasonable to compare the risk of suffering a large loss with the risk of missing out on a large gain. If your annual income is $N, missing out on a gain of $N is bad, but not nearly as bad a suffering a loss of $N.

- A comment I saw elsewhere on HN today

It's quite rational, in many cases, to consider loss of an object X worse than gain of X. A less rigorous example I like to use: it's far easier, and unequal, to kill a person than revive a person.

Isn't this the accepted advice for investment. Putting money in something that gains X% consistently with years of proven sustained growth vs putting money in something with potential 100X% growth but could give you negative growth if it fails has always been the advice in long term financial planning

> A less rigorous example I like to use: it's far easier, and unequal, to kill a person than revive a person.

People's intuitions aren't going to work right for situations that are impossible. I don't think you should use that example. (Or if you mean medical revival from the edge of death, then it's very difficult to visualize a "kill" that's actually an equal amount of damage.)

And things you own are fungible while people are not, which is itself enough to ruin the analogy.

This, in a nutshell, is why Effective Altruism sucks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com