埃尔斯伯格悖论的解答

Gabriel Frahm
{"title":"埃尔斯伯格悖论的解答","authors":"Gabriel Frahm","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3106008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ellsberg's famous thought experiments demonstrate that most people prefer less ambiguous alternatives to more ambiguous ones. This apparently violates Savage's Sure-thing Principle. I provide a solution to Ellsberg's paradox. More precisely, I demonstrate that ambiguity aversion can be readily explained by subjectivistic decision theory. The given solution is simple and fits perfectly into Savage's subjectivistic framework. Since ambiguity aversion translates into the subjective probabilities of the decision-maker, they could even be used in order to quantify his ambiguity aversion.","PeriodicalId":10477,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Social Science eJournal","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Solution to Ellsberg's Paradox\",\"authors\":\"Gabriel Frahm\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3106008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Ellsberg's famous thought experiments demonstrate that most people prefer less ambiguous alternatives to more ambiguous ones. This apparently violates Savage's Sure-thing Principle. I provide a solution to Ellsberg's paradox. More precisely, I demonstrate that ambiguity aversion can be readily explained by subjectivistic decision theory. The given solution is simple and fits perfectly into Savage's subjectivistic framework. Since ambiguity aversion translates into the subjective probabilities of the decision-maker, they could even be used in order to quantify his ambiguity aversion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10477,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Social Science eJournal\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Social Science eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3106008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Social Science eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3106008","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

埃尔斯伯格著名的思想实验表明,大多数人更喜欢模棱两可的选择,而不是模棱两可的选择。这显然违反了萨维奇的确定性原则。我为埃尔斯伯格悖论提供了一个解决方案。更准确地说,我证明了模糊厌恶可以很容易地用主观决策理论来解释。给出的解决方案很简单,完全符合萨维奇的主观主义框架。由于歧义厌恶转化为决策者的主观概率,它们甚至可以用来量化他的歧义厌恶。
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
A Solution to Ellsberg's Paradox
Ellsberg's famous thought experiments demonstrate that most people prefer less ambiguous alternatives to more ambiguous ones. This apparently violates Savage's Sure-thing Principle. I provide a solution to Ellsberg's paradox. More precisely, I demonstrate that ambiguity aversion can be readily explained by subjectivistic decision theory. The given solution is simple and fits perfectly into Savage's subjectivistic framework. Since ambiguity aversion translates into the subjective probabilities of the decision-maker, they could even be used in order to quantify his ambiguity aversion.
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
The Cost of Overconfidence in Public Information The Compliance Consequences of Fault Assignment in Sanctions Examining the Link Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Work Performance of Employees in the Private Schools, Mediated by Workplace Environment An Ordinal Theory of Risk and Correlation Aversion Persuasion Under Costly Learning
×
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