Gal & Rucker
Article
Gal & Rucker is a recurring person in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between August 30, 2021 and August 31, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as “Gal & Rucker’s Loss Of Loss Aversion”; “G&R are happy to admit that in many, many cases”; “The most intelligent critiques, like Gal & Rucker’s, argue that it’s an epiphenomenon of other cognitive biases”. It most often appears alongside Kahneman, loss aversion, prospect theory.
Metadata
- Category: People
- Mention count: 2
- Issue count: 2
- First seen: August 30, 2021
- Last seen: August 31, 2023
Appears In
Related Pages
-
- Kahneman (2 shared issues)
-
- loss aversion (2 shared issues)
-
- prospect theory (2 shared issues)
-
- Acceptable Losses (1 shared issues)
-
- Acceptable Losses: The Debatable Origins of Loss Aversion (1 shared issues)
-
- Against Automaticity (1 shared issues)
-
- Alex Imas (1 shared issues)
-
- Apollo (1 shared issues)
-
- Banana (1 shared issues)
-
- Behavioral Econ 101 (1 shared issues)
-
- behavioral economics (1 shared issues)
-
- Buddha (1 shared issues)
External Links
Source Context
Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.
...s *also* dubious. If loss aversion can't be trusted, then no other idea in the field can be trusted. This argument relies on two papers - Yechaim’s Acceptable Losses and Gal & Rucker’s Loss Of Loss Aversion . Yechaim’s paper is a historical detective story. It looks at how Kahneman and Tversky first “discovered” and popularized the idea of loss avers...
...ly there have been hundreds of much better studies on loss aversion in the forty years since they wrote their article, so we should be looking at those. Here Hreha cites Gal & Rucker: The Loss Of Loss Aversion: Will It Loom Larger Than Its Gain ? It’s a great 2018 paper that looks at recent evidence and concludes that loss aversion doesn’t exist. But...
.... Something we thought was an ontological primitive just turned out to be made of smaller parts, which is the story of science since Democritus. I recommend Section 3 of Gal & Rucker, which gets into some philosophy of science here, including the difference between normal science and a paradigm shift. Part of paradigm shifting is interpreting old res...
...s *also* dubious. If loss aversion can't be trusted, then no other idea in the field can be trusted. This argument relies on two papers - Yechaim’s Acceptable Losses and Gal & Rucker’s Loss Of Loss Aversion . Yechaim’s paper is a historical detective story. It looks at how Kahneman and Tversky first “discovered” and popularized the idea of loss aversion from earlier 1950s a...
...relevance, not that it doesn’t exist. - Loss aversion has survived many replication attempts and can also be viscerally appreciated. The most intelligent critiques, like Gal & Rucker’s, argue that it’s an epiphenomenon of other cognitive biases, not that it doesn’t exist or doesn’t replicate. - The big prospect theory replication paper concluded that...
...t’s artificial and has no real-world relevance, not that it doesn’t exist. - Loss aversion has survived many replication attempts and can also be viscerally appreciated. The most intelligent critiques, like Gal & Rucker’s, argue that it’s an epiphenomenon of other cognitive biases, not that it doesn’t exist or doesn’t replicate. - The big prospect theory replication paper concluded that “the empirical foundations for prospect theory replicate beyo...