Modeling the Ellsberg Paradox by Argument Strength
نویسندگان
چکیده
We present a formal measure of argument strength, which combines the ideas that conclusions of strong arguments are (i) highly probable and (ii) their uncertainty is relatively precise. Likewise, arguments are weak when their conclusion probability is low or when it is highly imprecise. We show how the proposed measure provides a new model of the Ellsberg paradox. Moreover, we further substantiate the psychological plausibility of our approach by an experiment (N = 60). The data show that the proposed measure predicts human inferences in the original Ellsberg task and in corresponding argument strength tasks. Finally, we report qualitative data taken from structured interviews on folk psychological conceptions on what argument strength means.
منابع مشابه
Computational Modeling of 2-sided Message’s Effects on Perceived Argument Strength
The aim of this research is studying of 2-sided message’s effects on persuasiveness of anti-drug messages by computational modeling method. It’s been done for getting more effective and more persuasive messages. Persuasiveness of messages is measured be perceived argument strength of them which is determined by audiences. In this research, according to formative researches, a method for measuri...
متن کاملA Quantum Cognition Analysis of the Ellsberg Paradox
The expected utility hypothesis is one of the foundations of classical approaches to economics and decision theory and Savage’s Sure-Thing Principle is a fundamental element of it. It has been put forward that real-life situations exist, illustrated by the Allais and Ellsberg paradoxes, in which the Sure-Thing Principle is violated, and where also the expected utility hypothesis does not hold. ...
متن کاملCan quantum decision theory explain the Ellsberg paradox?
We report the results of an experiment we performed to test the matching probabilities for the Ellsberg paradox predicted by the quantum decision model of al-Nowaihi and Dhami (2016). We find that the theoretical predictions of that model are in conformity with our experimental results. This supports the thesis that violations of classical (Kolmogorov) probability theory may not be due to irrat...
متن کاملParadox and Relativism
Since the time of Plato, relativism has been attacked as a self-refuting theory. Today, there are two basic kinds of argument that are used to show that global relativism is logically incoherent: first, a direct descendent of the argument Plato uses against Protagoras, called the peritrope; and, second, a more recent argument that relativism leads to an infinite regress. Although some relativis...
متن کاملTesting Ambiguity and Machina Preferences Within a Quantum-theoretic Framework for Decision-making
The Machina thought experiments pose to major non-expected utility models challenges that are similar to those posed by the Ellsberg thought experiments to subjective expected utility theory (SEUT). We test human choices in the ‘Ellsberg three-color example’, confirming typical ambiguity aversion patterns, and the ‘Machina 50/51 and reflection examples’, partially confirming the preferences hyp...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- CoRR
دوره abs/1703.03233 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2017