Thomas Aquinas on Decision Making Under Uncertainty, Ignorance, and Risk: The Role of Keynes's Weight of the Evidence Concept in His Approach

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Emmett Brady
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Thomas Aquinas ◽  
Decision Making Under Uncertainty

scholarly journals The Psychology of Risk Management

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaëlle Vallée-Tourangeau ◽  
Frédéric Vallée-Tourangeau
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Subjective Perception ◽  
Decision Making Under Uncertainty ◽  
Risk And Uncertainty ◽  
Investment Performance ◽  
Human Risk ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Shed Light

A better understanding of how human factors may shape risk perception and risk-taking is key to improve investment performance. This chapter draws on research on the psychology of risk and decision-making under uncertainty to shed light on these issues. The first part focuses on the evaluation of risk and uncertainty. After outlining the different psychological concepts of uncertainty, we review the different factors influencing individuals’ subjective perception of risk as well as the heuristics they may use to gauge risk and uncertainty. The second part of this chapter focuses on the different factors influencing human risk-taking behaviour, ranging from attitudes to risk to the contexts in which risky decisions take place, and the role of emotions in risk-taking.

Role of the Hippocampus in Decision Making Under Uncertainty

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahaaeddin Attaallah ◽  
Pierre Petitet ◽  
Rhea Zambellas ◽  
Sarosh Irani ◽  
Sanjay G Manohar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Making Under Uncertainty

Anton's Game: Deontological Decision Theory for an Iterated Decision Problem

Utilitas ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
SETH LAZAR
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Theory ◽  
Decision Problem ◽  
Expected Value ◽  
Sunk Costs ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Decision Making Under Uncertainty ◽  
Moral Reasons ◽  
Moral Significance

How should deontologists approach decision-making under uncertainty, for an iterated decision problem? In this article I explore the shortcomings of a simple expected value approach, using a novel example to raise questions about attitudes to risk, the moral significance of tiny probabilities, the independent moral reasons against imposing risks, the morality of sunk costs, and the role of agent-relativity in iterated decision problems.

scholarly journals The Logic of Inference and Decision for Scientific Evidence

2021 ◽  
pp. 251-266
Author(s):  
Franco Taroni ◽  
Silvia Bozza ◽  
Alex Biedermann
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Daily Activities ◽  
Decision Making Under Uncertainty ◽  
Forensic Evidence ◽  
Probative Value ◽  
Preference Structures ◽  
Forensic Scientists

Uncertainty is an inevitable complication encountered by members of the judiciary who face inference and decision-making as core aspects of their daily activities. Inference, in this context, is mainly inductive and relates to the use of incomplete information, to reason about propositions of interest. Applied to scientific evidence, this means, for example, to reason about whether or not a person of interest is the source of a recovered evidential material and factfinders are required to make decisions about ultimate issues, for example, regarding a defendant’s guilt. The role of forensic scientists, whose duty is to help assess the probative value of scientific findings, is to offer to mandate authorities’ conclusions that are scientifically sound and logically defensible. This chapter lays out the fundamentals of inference and decision-making under uncertainty with regard to forensic evidence. The authors explicate explain the subjectivist version of Bayesianism and analyze the usefulness of the likelihood ratio in for measuring the degree to which the evidence discriminates between competing propositions in a trial. They also underscore emphasize the importance of decision analysis as a framework that forces helps decision-makers to formalize preference structures.

Weight of Evidence

2021 ◽  
pp. 123-136
Author(s):  
Dale A. Nance
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
The Other ◽  
Relative Degree ◽  
Weight Of Evidence ◽  
Decision Making Under Uncertainty ◽  
John Maynard Keynes ◽  
Policy Choices

This chapter analyzes and operationalizes a concept of “weight” as denoting the relative degree to which evidence has been developed on the basis of which to determine disputed claims. This concept was coined by John Maynard Keynes and later applied in the context of judicial proof by a number of scholars. The author distinguishes weight from the degree to which evidence favors one side over the other, and then assays the different ways this concept of weight can be operationalized. He identifies the strengths and weaknesses of various theories, and advocates a conception of weight that emphasizes its connection to fundamental policy choices about the importance of accuracy in litigation and, perhaps, the allocation of the risk of error. He argues that a common failure to appreciate the differences between ordinary decision-making under uncertainty and formal adjudication is responsible for confusion about the role of weight in the latter.

scholarly journals The role of anticipated regret in choosing for others

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shiro Kumano ◽  
Antonia Hamilton ◽  
Bahador Bahrami
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Everyday Life ◽  
Decision Making Under Uncertainty ◽  
Anticipated Regret ◽  
Audience Effect ◽  
Behavioural Analysis ◽  
Decisions For Others

AbstractIn everyday life, people sometimes find themselves making decisions on behalf of others, taking risks on another’s behalf, accepting the responsibility for these choices and possibly suffering regret for what they could have done differently. Previous research has extensively studied how people deal with risk when making decisions for others or when being observed by others. Here, we asked whether making decisions for present others is affected by regret avoidance. We studied value-based decision making under uncertainty, manipulating both whether decisions benefited the participant or a partner (beneficiary effect) and whether the partner watched the participant’s choices (audience effect) and their factual and counterfactual outcomes. Computational behavioural analysis revealed that participants were less mindful of regret (and more strongly driven by bigger risks) when choosing for others vs for themselves. Conversely, they chose more conservatively (regarding both regret and risk) when being watched vs alone. The effects of beneficiary and audience on anticipated regret counteracted each other, suggesting that participants’ financial and reputational interests impacted the feeling of regret independently.

Elaborating the role of reflection and individual differences in the study of folk-economic beliefs

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
History Of ◽  
Economic Beliefs

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Audiologic Rehabilitation

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Behavior Changes ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Treatment Information ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Audiologic Rehabilitation

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document