[metamemetics]

>What I think is wrong is to take only a single terminology

Utility is a basic textbook economics term and the context of Arrington's article. Also, Arrington was an economics major. I think sticking to one terminology is highly preferable over acontextual obscurism.

[barrkel]

Well, even staying within the bounds of economics, there are problems: are you talking about homo economicus, or behavioural economics? The latter brings in portions of the other systems into the economic model in order to better reflect the workings of the real world organism.

Economics is about the study of choice; but we can split that up into at least two broad categories, the most efficient choices, and the actual choices made by people. You can stay strictly within a so-called rational model for the first - and you must, in order to justify the inputs to your utility function - but the second is experimental, and relies on observed inputs necessarily defined by disciplines other than economics.

The insight of behavioural economics is that it's not so much rational maximization of gains that drives us, but rather imperfect mechanisms implemented in the organism, whose outcomes have been tuned by evolution to approach rational maximization. Leaving out the behavioural aspect means your model won't correspond as well with the real world, the only thing worth talking about. And I'm asserting that seeking a certain amount of risk is just one of those mechanisms.

[metamemetics]

If you want to go to Kahneman & Tversky, yes different heuristics people may use for estimating risk and reward are probably biased estimators (although I hope all pirate-entrepreneurs are using a little math and obtaining feedback ). That certainly does not mean risk, independent of gains, becomes intrinsic utility for the non-masochistic.

[barrkel]

I think you're too wedded to one way of viewing things to open your mind, so it's pointless to continue the conversation.

[metamemetics]

I studied cognitive psychology not economics ;) I'm familiar with the topics your bringing up and agree they're interesting but also think they are irrelevant to the issue of correlation vs causation and the red herring of "risk" when looking at what motivates entrepreneurs.

[barrkel]

What's the opposite of risk? Most people would say safety; but I would say boredom. Stimulation becomes repetitive if there's nothing at stake. It wasn't for the expected gain of money that I bet on games during the World Cup last summer; it was to make the games in which I had no personal stake interesting. I don't know where you are, but internet betting is legal where I am.

I don't think appetite for risk is sufficient for entrepreneurial activity; but I do think it's necessary. So I don't think it's a red herring.