[judofyr]

Are you reading the same article as me? As they mentioned:

> Loss aversion has been represented as a fundamental principle. Loss aversion is not understood as the idea that losses can or sometimes loom larger than gains, but that losses inherently, perhaps inescapably, outweigh gains. For example, Kahneman, Knetch, and Thaler (1990, p. 1326) describe loss aversion as "the generalization that losses are weighted substantially more than objectively commensurate gains." In a similar fashion, other researchers do not qualify the idea of loss aversion; Tversky and Kahneman (1986, p. S255) state that "the response to losses is more extreme than the response to gains;" and Kahneman and Tversky (1984, p. 342) state "the value function is … considerably steeper for losses than for gains."

The authors are refuting "loss aversion" as Kahneman et al is describing it.

> (i.e. they don't present an alternative theory to explain the papers that purport to demonstrate "loss aversion")

Why do they need to? The paper isn't about trying to explain when losses or gains are most impactful; the paper is about whether or not there's a clear tendency.

[vezycash]

Big words don't count as evidence. The article brings absolutely no new information to the table. Heck, I think this article's a clickbait.

The basic principle behind loss aversion is simple.

What's the primary motive behind an action - Running away or running towards? Prevention or gain.

For instance. Yesterday an article about American child care was on HN.

American parents are acting primarily to PREVENT injury, discomfort or death of their children. That's action motivated by loss aversion.

Japanese, maya parents still want safety for their children but independence of their kids is a primary motivator for their action. In other words gain.

I think the author is confused about something. I want more money and I don't want to lose the ones I have. Both feelings aren't mutually exclusive. However at the point of decision I could be swayed more by greed or by fear.

If a site, seller or investment is shady, fear wins. I'll protect myself. If not, greed or gain could win in that instance.

I could speed down towards a party one moment. And a near miss could make me reconsider and slow down. Both modes occurred on the same journey. No grammar by some clickbaity author would change that.

[WalterBright]

To me, loss aversion was amply illustrated by a "King of Cars" episode, a reality show at a car dealership. The manager would hand out $100 bills to the salesmen in the morning, with the proviso that if they sold a car that day, they got to keep the C note on top of their commission.

He'd found they worked much harder to retain the note once it was in their hands, than if he offered a bonus of $100 at the end of the day.

[judofyr]

That's a good example, but there's many factors at play here. For instance:

- Loss aversion

- Trust (i.e. the manager believes in you): When we hear the word "bonus" we often think "that's something that happens 10% of the days". However, when the manager is giving you the money at the beginning of the day they're saying "I think you can do this today. I might as well give it you already." The manager very clearly shows that they believe in you, and they probably know what they're doing.

- The prize is visible: We know from many examples that humans become more motivated when they can physically see their prize. One part of this trick is that you have the note in your pocket. Maybe you even take it out a few times during the day.

There's a few ways to test what factor is most important. For instance, you would expect the trust-factor to fade over time because you'll realize that the manager gives you the note regardless of their faith/belief in that you can make it (there's nothing special about "this day" or "this employee"). You could also replace the $100 note with a more neutral coupon that says "$100 bonus". This makes the prize less visible, but we should still value it as $100. Or maybe there's a checkbox on a sheet inside the office which says "Tick off if bonus not reached". If the effect goes away, then the visibility-factor is stronger than the loss-aversion-factor.

This is my main beef with the pop culture around "loss aversion" (and other psychological terms): There's so many interesting things to discuss around it, but we so badly want to combine everything into one simple buzz word.

[judofyr]

> The article brings absolutely no new information to the table.

Did you read the paper? It's not a paper that "brings new information to the table", it's a paper which presents recent experiments and tries to show that there is little scientific evidence of loss aversion.

> The basic principle behind loss aversion is simple.

Huh? I don't understand what you're saying? You're saying that "loss aversion" is simple, but then you give examples of losses not being universally more impactful than gains? What you're describing here is exactly the point of the authors: Both modes are important

> … swayed more by greed or by fear.

And you should be aware that "loss aversion" is very careful to not talk about the psychological process behind. Loss aversion is not about greed, fear or any feeling and/or instinct. Loss aversion is a measurable effect. None of the papers that claim that loss aversion is a general principle claims that "greed is stronger than love" or anything similar to that. In fact, they are very "chicken" and just shrug it away.

[nothrabannosir]

> Did you read the paper? … Huh? … you should be aware that …

I have no skin in this one but I would like to call this out: these comments make an argument combative. It pushes people up a tree and makes it hard to focus on the facts. Imagine user vezycash actually was swayed by your argument; how easy would it be for them to say, hey, you’re right? Pretty hard after all those comments, because it ties in their pride with their viewpoints and makes changing their point of view humiliating rather than enlightening. The conversation is now a battle, and admitting fault is losing face.

I’m calling this out now but by no means is it specific to you; it happens all the time. My request to anyone here is: please leave all those phrases out. “You should...”, “did you even...” etc. The argument works just as well without them. It makes it much easier for someone to say, hey, I guess you’re right! And isn’t that what we all want, in the end? ;)

Thanks.

[judofyr]

Yeah, I see how this turns an argument combative and that wasn't my intention. I don't think there's anything wrong with vezycash's point of view, in fact I completely agree with most/all of his points :-)

There is something to be said about "Did you read the paper?" though. We have here an article where an author has published a rather large article (59 pages) and done a substantial amount of research (quoting over 80 other published papers). I don't expect everyone to read all of that, but I wish people were more upfront about whether they're talking generally about the topic or discussing the actual story.

Like, I honestly wonder "Did you read the paper?" not because I expect everyone to read the paper, but because it means we can have a more constructive discussion. If you haven't read the paper and is confused about what the author means then I can try to find quotations that better explain the author's opinion. Or maybe we can discuss the general topic (ignoring the story).

[wild_preference]

Agreed, especially when their point is that something is self-evident in the comments section of an article that specifically goes into great length to argue otherwise.

[NPMaxwell]

Could you post a link to the 59-page article you are referring to? Thanks

[taneq]

Just to back this up, 'don't imply that someone didn't read the article' is actually in the HN guidelines.

[dgacmu]

In this case, however, the person asked if the poster had read the underlying scientific paper - which is not the same as the linked popular press article. It's a legit question to help frame the discussion, though with tone issues that suggest a gentler way of asking would be helpful.

[tarboreus]

This comment should be printed out and hung in Times Square.

[vezycash]

As complex as gravity and electricity are, the underlying principles are simple. Same with loss aversion. Money isn't the only or biggest motivator.

Take a good common example of loss aversion - admitting being wrong. Why do people find it difficult to admit that they are wrong?

What's at stake here? Reputation, respect, pride, even money.

100 scientists vs Einstein is a classic example of this. Pointless wars have been been fought because someone wouldn't admit being wrong. The Iraqi, Vietnam wars are good examples.

Your reaction to this issue is another.

Limiting loss aversion to just economic behavior betrays lack of understanding of the topic.

[jkabrg]

The arguments you made don't challenge what the article says one bit.

The loss aversion hypothesis is the hypothesis that given the choice between either of the following two scenarios:

  - Having an object x and then risk losing it.
  - Being offered an object x but risk not getting it.

people are more "motivated" by the first than by the second. The claim moreover is that:

  - This is a universal motivator, which means it must explain "economic behavior" (which you mention) as well as anything
 else. The fact that -- as the article says -- people prefer *keeping* a stock which is just as likely to lose in value as
 to gain, is a *perfect* example to illustrate that it is *not* a universal motivator.
  - That it is not rational. There are cases where losing something, like for instance money, is *truly* more damaging
 than gaining the equivalent amount of money. For example, if I lost $100,000 it would be much more devastating than if I
 gained $100,000 -- in this scenario, it's not a psychological *bias* but in fact a completely rational belief. This example
 is in the article. You can not use examples like this one to argue in favour of "loss aversion", because there would be no
 evidence of an irrational bias.

Also, the fact that you keep applying the "loss aversion" hypothesis as broadly as possible, to things like wars and arguments, suggests you're assuming it applies everywhere. What about the stock example, which is mentioned in the article? That ought to prove you wrong, no?

[tomp]

> What's at stake here? Reputation, respect, pride, even money.

Ego. People primarily lie to themselves, in order to retain the coherent (constructed) reality/continuity of their life. (c.f. cognitive dissonance)

[keypusher]

Loss aversion specifically refers to "people's tendency to prefer avoiding losses to acquiring equivalent gains". It's not just the general idea that people are averse to losses, it's about how people value gains and losses differently.