Looking forward to your exploration of these issues.
I have often wondered about the aircraft example. Sometimes, I have thought it might reflect what you could call destiny-control bias. This bias means that we tend to give more credence to things that leave us in control of our destiny than things that do not (driving a car v being a passenger in an aircraft piloted by someone you have never met).
I wonder also whether you need to consider risk tolerance as an external variable affecting 'expressed' credence. In your apple example, the different decisions could be explained by how willing a person is to suffer negative consequences (the apple has a worm or tastes bad) rather than the inherent credence they give to the apple being ok.
Agree. Risk tolerance is an important factor in making a decision. The lower our risk tolerance, the higher the credence we need - and probably vice versa.
I also think that how 'reversible' a decision is, i.e. how easy it is to change course after the fact, also affects both our risk tolerance and credence. We are comfortable with higher risks if we feel like we can actively minimise negative outcomes - which I think plays into the aircraft example. More on this in a week or two!
Looking forward to your exploration of these issues.
I have often wondered about the aircraft example. Sometimes, I have thought it might reflect what you could call destiny-control bias. This bias means that we tend to give more credence to things that leave us in control of our destiny than things that do not (driving a car v being a passenger in an aircraft piloted by someone you have never met).
I wonder also whether you need to consider risk tolerance as an external variable affecting 'expressed' credence. In your apple example, the different decisions could be explained by how willing a person is to suffer negative consequences (the apple has a worm or tastes bad) rather than the inherent credence they give to the apple being ok.
Agree. Risk tolerance is an important factor in making a decision. The lower our risk tolerance, the higher the credence we need - and probably vice versa.
I also think that how 'reversible' a decision is, i.e. how easy it is to change course after the fact, also affects both our risk tolerance and credence. We are comfortable with higher risks if we feel like we can actively minimise negative outcomes - which I think plays into the aircraft example. More on this in a week or two!