brendan_oconnor_ai brendan_oconnor_ai-2007 brendan_oconnor_ai-2007-77 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: I got nervous and panicky just reading about this game. I wonder if I could con some people into playing it. Economics professors have a standard game they use to demonstrate how apparently rational decisions can create a disastrous result. They call it a “dollar auction.” The rules are simple. The professor offers a dollar for sale to the highest bidder, with only one wrinkle: the second-highest bidder has to pay up on their losing bid as well. Several students almost always get sucked in. The first bids a penny, looking to make 99 cents. The second bids 2 cents, the third 3 cents, and so on, each feeling they have a chance at something good on the cheap. The early stages are fun, and the bidders wonder what possessed the professor to be willing to lose some money. The problem surfaces when the bidders get up close to a dollar. After 99 cents the last vestige of profitability disappears, but the bidding continues between the two highest players. They now realize that they stand
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 I wonder if I could con some people into playing it. [sent-2, score-0.108]
2 Economics professors have a standard game they use to demonstrate how apparently rational decisions can create a disastrous result. [sent-3, score-0.412]
3 The professor offers a dollar for sale to the highest bidder, with only one wrinkle: the second-highest bidder has to pay up on their losing bid as well. [sent-6, score-1.304]
4 The first bids a penny, looking to make 99 cents. [sent-8, score-0.208]
5 The second bids 2 cents, the third 3 cents, and so on, each feeling they have a chance at something good on the cheap. [sent-9, score-0.359]
6 The early stages are fun, and the bidders wonder what possessed the professor to be willing to lose some money. [sent-10, score-0.642]
7 The problem surfaces when the bidders get up close to a dollar. [sent-11, score-0.274]
8 After 99 cents the last vestige of profitability disappears, but the bidding continues between the two highest players. [sent-12, score-0.575]
9 They now realize that they stand to lose no matter what, but that they can still buffer their losses by winning the dollar. [sent-13, score-0.443]
10 Following this strategy, the two hapless students usually run the bid up several dollars, turning the apparent shot at easy money into a ghastly battle of spiraling disaster. [sent-15, score-0.677]
11 Theoretically, there is no stable outcome once the dynamic gets going. [sent-16, score-0.257]
12 In the classroom, the auction generally ends with the grudging decision of one player to “irrationally” accept the larger loss and get out of the terrible spiral. [sent-18, score-0.84]
13 Economists call the dollar auction pattern an irrational escalation of commitment. [sent-19, score-0.812]
14 What seems frightening is the aspect of losses — if you’re in the lead, any move by anyone else pushes you into the bad losing position of 2nd place. [sent-23, score-0.527]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('cents', 0.312), ('dollar', 0.271), ('auction', 0.208), ('bid', 0.208), ('bidder', 0.208), ('bidders', 0.208), ('bids', 0.208), ('losses', 0.208), ('professor', 0.181), ('highest', 0.181), ('losing', 0.165), ('call', 0.161), ('students', 0.145), ('lose', 0.145), ('player', 0.145), ('rational', 0.132), ('wonder', 0.108), ('game', 0.1), ('ends', 0.09), ('irrational', 0.09), ('terrible', 0.09), ('shot', 0.09), ('accept', 0.09), ('battle', 0.09), ('demonstrate', 0.09), ('disappears', 0.09), ('disastrous', 0.09), ('dynamic', 0.09), ('enter', 0.09), ('sale', 0.09), ('stable', 0.09), ('winning', 0.09), ('wrinkle', 0.09), ('dollars', 0.082), ('loss', 0.082), ('feeling', 0.082), ('strategy', 0.082), ('continues', 0.082), ('pattern', 0.082), ('sucked', 0.082), ('rules', 0.077), ('position', 0.077), ('outcome', 0.077), ('aspect', 0.077), ('apparent', 0.073), ('several', 0.071), ('generally', 0.069), ('economists', 0.069), ('third', 0.069), ('get', 0.066)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 77 brendan oconnor ai-2007-09-15-Dollar auction
Introduction: I got nervous and panicky just reading about this game. I wonder if I could con some people into playing it. Economics professors have a standard game they use to demonstrate how apparently rational decisions can create a disastrous result. They call it a “dollar auction.” The rules are simple. The professor offers a dollar for sale to the highest bidder, with only one wrinkle: the second-highest bidder has to pay up on their losing bid as well. Several students almost always get sucked in. The first bids a penny, looking to make 99 cents. The second bids 2 cents, the third 3 cents, and so on, each feeling they have a chance at something good on the cheap. The early stages are fun, and the bidders wonder what possessed the professor to be willing to lose some money. The problem surfaces when the bidders get up close to a dollar. After 99 cents the last vestige of profitability disappears, but the bidding continues between the two highest players. They now realize that they stand
2 0.085341744 26 brendan oconnor ai-2005-09-02-cognitive modelling is rational choice++
Introduction: Rational choice has been a huge imperialistic success, growing in popularity and being applied to more and more fields. Why is this? It’s not because the rational choice model of decision-making is particularly realistic. Rather, it’s because rational choice is a completely specified theory of human behavior , and therefore is great at generating hypotheses. Given any situation involving people, rational choice can be used to generate a hypothesis about what to expect. That is, you just ask, “What would a person do to maximize their own benefit?” Similar things have been said about evolutionary psychology: you can always predict behavior by asking “what would hunter-gatherers do?” Now, certainly both rational choice and evolutionary psychology don’t always generate correct hypotheses, but they’re incredibly useful because they at least give you a starting point. Witness the theory of bounded rationality: just like rational choice, except amended to consider computational l
3 0.085251182 68 brendan oconnor ai-2007-07-08-Game outcome graphs — prisoner’s dilemma with FUN ARROWS!!!
Introduction: I think game theory could benefit immensely from better presentation. Its default presentation is pretty mathematical. This is good because it treats social interactions in an abstract way, highlighting their essential properties, but is bad because it’s hard to understand, especially at first. However, I think I have a visualization that can sometimes capture the same abstract properties of the mathematics. Here’s a stab at using it to explain everyone’s favorite game, the prisoner’s dilemma. THE PD: Two players each choose whether to play nice, or be mean — Cooperate or Defect. Then they simultaneously play their actions, and get payoffs depending on what both played. If both cooperated, they help each other and do well; if both defect, they do quite poorly. But if one tries to cooperate and the other defects, then the defector gets a big win, and the cooperator gets a crappy “sucker’s payoff”. The formal PD definition looks like this: where each of the four pairs
4 0.079147764 80 brendan oconnor ai-2007-10-31-neo institutional economic fun!
Introduction: [Like medieval Christian societies,] Islamic societies similarly found ingenious ways to circumvent the usury ban. The primary one was the double sale . In this transaction, the borrower would get, for example, both 100 dinars cash and a small piece of cloth valued at the absurdly high price of 15 dinars. In a year he would have to pay back 100 dinars for the loan of the cash and 15 for the cloth. These debts were upheld by Sharia courts. The cognition of rules and ethics sure is complex. I’d love to read the reasoning from those courts. From from Gregory Clark’s rather intense review of Avner Greif ‘s new-ish book on institutional economics. (Clark’s the one who wrote that interesting but weird evolutionary argument about European economic development.) If you’re in to the little worlds of institutional, evolutionary, and behavioral economics, Greif’s work is really interesting. Along with other institutional (or is it neo-institutional?) economists, he works to und
5 0.074081369 61 brendan oconnor ai-2007-05-24-Rock Paper Scissors psychology
Introduction: Rock, Paper, Scissors is making the blog rounds with an excellent strategy guide from the World RPS Society and a fun mental floss article too. (Though the First International RoShamBo programming contest should be noted.) Having played far too much RPS last year, I can say these tips look pretty decent for the most part. I will say I am a huge fan of the elegant move Running With Scissors — scissors three times in a row. “You think I’m crazy enough to play that AGAIN?” Un-frickin-stoppable. Everyone thinks, “but wait, RPS is a lame game. Playing randomly is the best strategy!” This is not true. Playing randomly is the best defensive strategy, since your opponent can never do better than 50% against it. However, it is not the best offensive strategy if you can infer what your opponent will play. For example, if you are confident that your opponent is too scared to play scissors for a third time in a row, exploit that and play paper (the only move vulnerable to scissor
6 0.062891953 92 brendan oconnor ai-2008-01-31-Food Fight
7 0.057291556 6 brendan oconnor ai-2005-06-25-idea: Morals are heuristics for socially optimal behavior
8 0.051883459 25 brendan oconnor ai-2005-09-02-Submit your poker data!
9 0.048288539 82 brendan oconnor ai-2007-11-14-Pop cog neuro is so sigh
10 0.047277782 13 brendan oconnor ai-2005-07-03-Supreme Court justices’ agreement levels
11 0.044636477 177 brendan oconnor ai-2011-11-11-Memorizing small tables
12 0.043751854 53 brendan oconnor ai-2007-03-15-Feminists, anarchists, computational complexity, bounded rationality, nethack, and other things to do
13 0.043749664 129 brendan oconnor ai-2008-12-03-Statistics vs. Machine Learning, fight!
14 0.042871941 55 brendan oconnor ai-2007-03-27-Seth Roberts and academic blogging
15 0.041818276 179 brendan oconnor ai-2012-02-02-Histograms — matplotlib vs. R
16 0.040705003 113 brendan oconnor ai-2008-09-18-"Machine" translation-vision (Stanford AI courses online)
17 0.040200137 56 brendan oconnor ai-2007-04-05-Evil
18 0.039837867 43 brendan oconnor ai-2006-07-30-4-move rock, paper, scissors!
19 0.039804734 153 brendan oconnor ai-2009-09-08-Patches to Rainbow, the old text classifier that won’t go away
20 0.03833868 19 brendan oconnor ai-2005-07-09-the psychology of design as explanation
topicId topicWeight
[(0, -0.145), (1, 0.064), (2, -0.009), (3, -0.043), (4, -0.029), (5, -0.03), (6, -0.005), (7, -0.063), (8, -0.011), (9, -0.014), (10, -0.093), (11, -0.022), (12, -0.065), (13, -0.038), (14, 0.063), (15, -0.054), (16, -0.058), (17, 0.07), (18, -0.025), (19, -0.048), (20, -0.036), (21, 0.014), (22, -0.008), (23, 0.053), (24, -0.055), (25, 0.008), (26, -0.059), (27, -0.047), (28, -0.136), (29, -0.089), (30, 0.045), (31, 0.059), (32, 0.042), (33, -0.041), (34, -0.108), (35, 0.045), (36, 0.04), (37, 0.069), (38, 0.157), (39, -0.029), (40, -0.016), (41, -0.035), (42, -0.101), (43, -0.138), (44, 0.119), (45, 0.043), (46, 0.009), (47, -0.044), (48, 0.009), (49, 0.1)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.98431784 77 brendan oconnor ai-2007-09-15-Dollar auction
Introduction: I got nervous and panicky just reading about this game. I wonder if I could con some people into playing it. Economics professors have a standard game they use to demonstrate how apparently rational decisions can create a disastrous result. They call it a “dollar auction.” The rules are simple. The professor offers a dollar for sale to the highest bidder, with only one wrinkle: the second-highest bidder has to pay up on their losing bid as well. Several students almost always get sucked in. The first bids a penny, looking to make 99 cents. The second bids 2 cents, the third 3 cents, and so on, each feeling they have a chance at something good on the cheap. The early stages are fun, and the bidders wonder what possessed the professor to be willing to lose some money. The problem surfaces when the bidders get up close to a dollar. After 99 cents the last vestige of profitability disappears, but the bidding continues between the two highest players. They now realize that they stand
2 0.5738793 68 brendan oconnor ai-2007-07-08-Game outcome graphs — prisoner’s dilemma with FUN ARROWS!!!
Introduction: I think game theory could benefit immensely from better presentation. Its default presentation is pretty mathematical. This is good because it treats social interactions in an abstract way, highlighting their essential properties, but is bad because it’s hard to understand, especially at first. However, I think I have a visualization that can sometimes capture the same abstract properties of the mathematics. Here’s a stab at using it to explain everyone’s favorite game, the prisoner’s dilemma. THE PD: Two players each choose whether to play nice, or be mean — Cooperate or Defect. Then they simultaneously play their actions, and get payoffs depending on what both played. If both cooperated, they help each other and do well; if both defect, they do quite poorly. But if one tries to cooperate and the other defects, then the defector gets a big win, and the cooperator gets a crappy “sucker’s payoff”. The formal PD definition looks like this: where each of the four pairs
3 0.49731433 26 brendan oconnor ai-2005-09-02-cognitive modelling is rational choice++
Introduction: Rational choice has been a huge imperialistic success, growing in popularity and being applied to more and more fields. Why is this? It’s not because the rational choice model of decision-making is particularly realistic. Rather, it’s because rational choice is a completely specified theory of human behavior , and therefore is great at generating hypotheses. Given any situation involving people, rational choice can be used to generate a hypothesis about what to expect. That is, you just ask, “What would a person do to maximize their own benefit?” Similar things have been said about evolutionary psychology: you can always predict behavior by asking “what would hunter-gatherers do?” Now, certainly both rational choice and evolutionary psychology don’t always generate correct hypotheses, but they’re incredibly useful because they at least give you a starting point. Witness the theory of bounded rationality: just like rational choice, except amended to consider computational l
4 0.47113827 13 brendan oconnor ai-2005-07-03-Supreme Court justices’ agreement levels
Introduction: Cool visualization of agreement levels among Supreme Court justices . I like how they’re ordered so that the smallest amount of agreement ends up in the lower-left. Hopefully it’s not deceptive for certain cases: I imagine that summarizing their tendencies to vote certain ways into a one dimensional spectrum would lose important information of other dimensions of agreement or coalitions.
5 0.46583241 6 brendan oconnor ai-2005-06-25-idea: Morals are heuristics for socially optimal behavior
Introduction: A common cognitive science view (H. Simon): Heuristics/biases are useful rules-of-thumb to approximate optimizing behavior given computational constraints. Consider the chess-playing heuristic “try not to lose your queen”. Since you can’t analyze all possible chess moves, it’s nice to have such a rule-of-thumb to narrow down possible actions to consider. You can reject out of hand an action that leads to losing your queen. This heuristic helps to approximate optimal chess-playing behavior given your computational constraints. Similarly, moral rules, tendencies, associations, and ontologies are heuristics to approximate socially optimal behavior. “Lying is bad” is a useful rule-of-thumb that usually gets good results for society. Codifying it as a norm — meaning, there’s 3rd party punishment and/or self-punishment (guilt) when it’s violated, thus the rule should get obeyed — is the implementation of a social-level heuristic that generally gives useful behavior. Just like this S
6 0.45578063 92 brendan oconnor ai-2008-01-31-Food Fight
7 0.39414155 177 brendan oconnor ai-2011-11-11-Memorizing small tables
9 0.3741633 61 brendan oconnor ai-2007-05-24-Rock Paper Scissors psychology
10 0.37233788 179 brendan oconnor ai-2012-02-02-Histograms — matplotlib vs. R
11 0.35876304 56 brendan oconnor ai-2007-04-05-Evil
12 0.35485828 34 brendan oconnor ai-2006-04-24-high irony
13 0.34803596 60 brendan oconnor ai-2007-05-09-Simpson’s paradox is so totally solved
14 0.34768781 125 brendan oconnor ai-2008-11-21-Netflix Prize
15 0.32928783 158 brendan oconnor ai-2010-03-31-How Facebook privacy failed me
16 0.32870612 80 brendan oconnor ai-2007-10-31-neo institutional economic fun!
17 0.31440431 62 brendan oconnor ai-2007-05-29-"Stanford Impostor"
18 0.31424755 35 brendan oconnor ai-2006-04-28-Easterly vs. Sachs on global poverty
19 0.31398106 38 brendan oconnor ai-2006-06-03-Neuroeconomics reviews
20 0.30983958 145 brendan oconnor ai-2009-06-26-Michael Jackson in Persepolis
topicId topicWeight
[(44, 0.034), (74, 0.863)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.99923581 152 brendan oconnor ai-2009-09-08-Another R flashmob today
Introduction: Dan Goldstein sends word they’re doing another Stackoverflow R flashmob today . It’s a neat trick. The R tag there is becoming pretty useful.
2 0.99899703 19 brendan oconnor ai-2005-07-09-the psychology of design as explanation
Introduction: Since I posted the link to his blog, Baron just wrote about Cardinal Schönborn’s anti-evolution Op-Ed piece . I agree absolutely that people should learn about the psychology of judgment and probability for these sorts of questions, where it’s really hard to understand that random processes can generate things that seem not so random. I’m still thinking about how the psychology of judgment plays in to the analysis below . I have a feeling that people’s intuitions are usually too hospitable for explanations based on intention. E.g.: People are poor, therefore someone is trying to make them poor. Organizations (corportations, governments) do things, therefore someone (say, at the top) ordered them to do these things. Natural disasters happen, therefore someone is wishing them upon us. Etc., etc. I’m still not sure how a bayesian dissection of whether “looks intentful” implies “is intentful” shows us whether such an “intent-seeking” bias (hey, I have to call it something) is
same-blog 3 0.99765354 77 brendan oconnor ai-2007-09-15-Dollar auction
Introduction: I got nervous and panicky just reading about this game. I wonder if I could con some people into playing it. Economics professors have a standard game they use to demonstrate how apparently rational decisions can create a disastrous result. They call it a “dollar auction.” The rules are simple. The professor offers a dollar for sale to the highest bidder, with only one wrinkle: the second-highest bidder has to pay up on their losing bid as well. Several students almost always get sucked in. The first bids a penny, looking to make 99 cents. The second bids 2 cents, the third 3 cents, and so on, each feeling they have a chance at something good on the cheap. The early stages are fun, and the bidders wonder what possessed the professor to be willing to lose some money. The problem surfaces when the bidders get up close to a dollar. After 99 cents the last vestige of profitability disappears, but the bidding continues between the two highest players. They now realize that they stand
4 0.9962914 105 brendan oconnor ai-2008-06-05-Clinton-Obama support visualization
Introduction: This interactive histogram is brilliant. The NYT data visualization folks never fail to impress. margins.swf (application/x-shockwave-flash Object)
5 0.993604 26 brendan oconnor ai-2005-09-02-cognitive modelling is rational choice++
Introduction: Rational choice has been a huge imperialistic success, growing in popularity and being applied to more and more fields. Why is this? It’s not because the rational choice model of decision-making is particularly realistic. Rather, it’s because rational choice is a completely specified theory of human behavior , and therefore is great at generating hypotheses. Given any situation involving people, rational choice can be used to generate a hypothesis about what to expect. That is, you just ask, “What would a person do to maximize their own benefit?” Similar things have been said about evolutionary psychology: you can always predict behavior by asking “what would hunter-gatherers do?” Now, certainly both rational choice and evolutionary psychology don’t always generate correct hypotheses, but they’re incredibly useful because they at least give you a starting point. Witness the theory of bounded rationality: just like rational choice, except amended to consider computational l
6 0.99305701 63 brendan oconnor ai-2007-06-10-Freak-Freakonomics (Ariel Rubinstein is the shit!)
7 0.97876728 203 brendan oconnor ai-2014-02-19-What the ACL-2014 review scores mean
9 0.77151746 86 brendan oconnor ai-2007-12-20-Data-driven charity
10 0.77137214 138 brendan oconnor ai-2009-04-17-1 billion web page dataset from CMU
12 0.70615864 6 brendan oconnor ai-2005-06-25-idea: Morals are heuristics for socially optimal behavior
13 0.70467263 130 brendan oconnor ai-2008-12-18-Information cost and genocide
14 0.70262277 80 brendan oconnor ai-2007-10-31-neo institutional economic fun!
15 0.6671291 84 brendan oconnor ai-2007-11-26-How did Freud become a respected humanist?!
16 0.66299224 188 brendan oconnor ai-2012-10-02-Powerset’s natural language search system
17 0.65110904 55 brendan oconnor ai-2007-03-27-Seth Roberts and academic blogging
18 0.6472764 125 brendan oconnor ai-2008-11-21-Netflix Prize
19 0.64006001 179 brendan oconnor ai-2012-02-02-Histograms — matplotlib vs. R
20 0.63437009 61 brendan oconnor ai-2007-05-24-Rock Paper Scissors psychology