The strange claim that loss aversion is irrational

By -
The claim is common; it appears, for instance, here.

I contend that this claim is itself irrational, and loss aversion makes perfect sense. Whatever I have now, I am getting by with it, and a loss of some of it might endanger my lifestyle, my family, or even my life.

Whatever I don't have now, I am getting by without it. And while getting it might seem attractive, I really don't know: perhaps it would ruin me! (Think of the curse of the lottery winner.)

Comments

  1. Lord12:05 PM

    I don't think loss aversion is irrational but framing bias often is. Even that is not always, sometimes the path matters as much as end, but loss aversion is often exploited by framing bias, the cure being to reframe without loss aversion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Silas Barta1:30 PM

    *Most* such fallacies or biases do in fact have such heuristic value -- you can make the same point about e.g. "status quo bias" or "appeal to authority/expert".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah2:21 PM

      I hope you realize that an appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the person is not an authority in the field in question?

      In any case, if loss aversion has heuristic value, why call it irrational?!

      Delete
    2. Silas Barta3:49 PM

      Like with fallacies, applying the heuristic *incorrectly* or "too broadly" or "in ways that ignore what information you have" *is* irrational. But at that point, it's a circular argument. "Don't do X, when X would be something you shouldn't do." Uh, thanks.

      Delete
  3. Prateek2:53 PM

    Gene, his point is correct, BUT FRAMED POORLY.

    When we have an asset whose price is rising, we get greedy, and instead of saying, "Hey, this is overvalued, I should sell", we just wait for it to get higher until the bubble explodes.

    When we have an asset whose price is falling, we sell it immediately before it causes a deeper loss. We don't wait for it to rise.

    If we applied the same logic to losses as to gains, we would accept a small profit rather than wait for the bubble to burst.

    Or conversely, sit out on the asset whose price is falling, confident that its price will rise again.

    Human beings unfortunately do not do either of the above most of the time.

    That is the not very logical part of "loss aversion".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah7:06 AM

      No, Prateek, that is not what loss aversion means.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more