Top Posts
- Why Is It A Crime To Park Facing The Wrong Way?
- What is the Recommended Serving Temperature for Guinness?
- How To Open A Bag of Charcoal
- Why Does the Fastest Swimmer Anchor a Relay?
- Left, Right, Then Left Again
- Pricing Bareback
- How to Shill on eBay
- Love: A Continuous Time Approach
- Who We Are
- Is It Just Your Imagination or Do All Radio Stations Play Ads at the Same Time?
Tags
art
art of office politics
banana seeds
blog
books
boston
california
chicago
coffee
computers
crime
current events
decision-making
economics
education
evolution
family
financial crisis
food and wine
friends
funny
game theory
incentives
iPhone
kludge
language
law
marriage
maths
movies
music
obama
politics
psychology
publishing
sandeep has bad taste
sanitation
sport
statistics
suicide
teaching
terrorism
the web
tomatoes
travel
TV
vapor mill
war
winter
writing
Subscribe via RSS
Jeff’s Twitter Feed
- 5. Peoples, of Judea 6. Judean Peoples' twitter.com/ltthompso/stat… 2 days ago
- RT @retsoor: *ubers into a sunset billboard* 3 days ago
- RT @matthewbaldwin: Actually, it was an analogy. "Your campaign is a steaming pile of shit" is a metaphor. twitter.com/nickconfessore… 4 days ago
- Yo, cooler heads: time to prevail. 6 days ago
- RT @MarkHarrisNYC: A great playwright who changed the American theater is gone. Rest in peace, Edward Albee. 1 week ago
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 17, 2013 at 11:52 pm
Lones Smith
1. You are ignoring the possibility of being forced to decide ASAP. Fine.
2. Even still, this logic ignores the option value of changing your mind. Optionality comes from uncertainty about what you *will* learn. That you have so far not “found any clear reason to favor one choice over the other” is a *backward looking* notion. But optionality is *forward-looking* — it speaks to the arrival rate of future ideas and/or the thickness of the density of the tail ideas. The second notion is addressed by the paper “Conversational War of Attrition” that Moritz Meyer-ter-Vehn (UCLA) and I are now writing up.
Bottom line: I think some indecision is called for your theory of decisiveness.
February 18, 2013 at 10:21 am
Enrique
Perhaps we can restate the claim this way: there is an optimal rate of indecision, but when the cost of not deciding outweighs the cost of any possible decision, then decide randomly
February 18, 2013 at 10:34 am
Joshua Gans
How long did it take you to decide to write that post?