[exue]

The example they used basically paints taking more risk as 'cooler, more rational option' which seems a bit odd to me. Humans are well known not to have a linear utility function for a lot of things (loss aversion) because doing so can be useful and can be argued as rational - especially when applied to money for instance, people will trade off higher average returns for lower risk which probably makes sense for survival. It's like saying a greater amount of change, or a greater amount of risk, is strictly better, whereas in any given situation it may be better or may be worse.