| Date: | Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:35:29 -0400 |
| Reply-To: | Jim Sunderhauf <jim@ANALYTICJOBS.COM.CNCHOST.COM> |
| Sender: | "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> |
| From: | Jim Sunderhauf <jim@ANALYTICJOBS.COM.CNCHOST.COM> |
| Subject: | In Celebration of a milestone!!! |
| In-Reply-To: | <200009291821.OAA08308@zealous.cnchost.com> |
| Content-Type: | text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed |
|---|
At the risk of injecting something other than pure logic here, it's
important to note that behavior is not necessarily linked to probable
outcomes. (or why would anyone ever smoke given the probable outcome!) .
Rather the principle that governs this type of behavior may be what
economists call the 'marginal utility of a resource.'
In this case the immediate benefit of spending that dollar on a lottery
ticket, (the thrill, excitement or the potential of winning), is greater
than any other use or benefit derived from that dollar, (i.e. a cup of
coffee, a danish or slurpee). Therefore the marginal utility of the
lottery, (the thrill, etc.) provides greater value than all other
considered alternatives.
For each individual the alternatives as well as the the perceived benefits
are different. Therefore different people will make different choices for
that one dollar investment. And each choice is correct given that
particular individual's marginal utility and their perceived benefit for
one dollar.
In this way the behavior is considered rational, (based on defined,
understandable reasoning), though not logical, (based on
accepted, probabilistic outcomes). And when it gets over $25 million, I'm
in for a buck regardless of the odds.
Jim Sunderhauf, Analytic Resources
1-888-399-4990
jim@analyticjobs.com
|