对信息的理性厌恶

Sven Neth
{"title":"对信息的理性厌恶","authors":"Sven Neth","doi":"arxiv-2309.12374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Is more information always better? Or are there some situations in which more\ninformation can make us worse off? Good (1966) argues that expected utility\nmaximizers should always accept more information if the information is\ncost-free and relevant. But Good's argument presupposes that you are certain\nyou will update by conditionalization. If we relax this assumption and allow\nagents to be uncertain about updating, these agents can be rationally required\nto reject free and relevant information. Since there are good reasons to be\nuncertain about updating, rationality can require you to prefer ignorance.","PeriodicalId":501323,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - STAT - Other Statistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rational Aversion to Information\",\"authors\":\"Sven Neth\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2309.12374\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Is more information always better? Or are there some situations in which more\\ninformation can make us worse off? Good (1966) argues that expected utility\\nmaximizers should always accept more information if the information is\\ncost-free and relevant. But Good's argument presupposes that you are certain\\nyou will update by conditionalization. If we relax this assumption and allow\\nagents to be uncertain about updating, these agents can be rationally required\\nto reject free and relevant information. Since there are good reasons to be\\nuncertain about updating, rationality can require you to prefer ignorance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - STAT - Other Statistics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - STAT - Other Statistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2309.12374\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - STAT - Other Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2309.12374","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

信息越多越好吗?或者在某些情况下,更多的信息会让我们变得更糟?Good(1966)认为,如果信息是无成本和相关的,预期效用最大化者应该总是接受更多的信息。但是Good的论点预设了你确定你会通过条件化来更新。如果我们放宽这一假设,允许代理对更新不确定,这些代理就可以合理地拒绝自由和相关的信息。既然有充分的理由对更新不确定,理性可能要求你更喜欢无知。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rational Aversion to Information
Is more information always better? Or are there some situations in which more information can make us worse off? Good (1966) argues that expected utility maximizers should always accept more information if the information is cost-free and relevant. But Good's argument presupposes that you are certain you will update by conditionalization. If we relax this assumption and allow agents to be uncertain about updating, these agents can be rationally required to reject free and relevant information. Since there are good reasons to be uncertain about updating, rationality can require you to prefer ignorance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Censored Data Forecasting: Applying Tobit Exponential Smoothing with Time Aggregation How to survive the Squid Games using probability theory Cross-sectional personal network analysis of adult smoking in rural areas Modeling information spread across networks with communities using a multitype branching process framework Asymptotic confidence intervals for the difference and the ratio of the weighted kappa coefficients of two diagnostic tests subject to a paired design
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1