User talk:Unmet

hey all

Ellsberg paradox

Thanks for your addition to the entry on the Ellsberg paradox. I must say I don't understand what you are getting at. Would you might modifying the entry to be a bit more clear? I am also worried that the explanation may mislead readers. The problem is not that individuals are choosing an option that has a worse expected utility for them, but rather that there is no utility function that can account for their behavior without including some sort of disutility for ambiguity (or someting). Anyway, thanks again for your interest! best, --Kzollman 07:38, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

dear kevin, thx for your note. sorry, i haven't made myself clear - would you help me to clarify it? i would define 'mistrust to a stranger' as utility function - probably one could also interpret it as 'disutility for ambiguity', but i was trying to underscore that individuals behave reasonably when choosing to trust a relative and distrust a stranger. this seems to be the case, when we have mental reasoning that Y balls are less then 50% in first gamble and more then 50% in the second. the only constant i see, is a disbelief in possibility to win all, like in case with sister and brother. probably, i am defining 'utility' too broad, but then a question arises - should psychological terministic screens be used when one is dealing with economic terms? best twice, - unmet 22:36 jun22 2005

Are you suggesting that the choices individuals make in the paradox depend on who loads the urn? If so, do you know of any studies that demonstrate this has an effect? best, --Kzollman 03:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

well, sure - imagine you have to put balls yourself and then gamble (which is the same as a loader's cooperation), isn't that obvious that results would change to B and C? regards, - unmet 02:36 jun24 2005

I see. It seems plausible that individuals think something is afoot and so choose A and D. Do you know of any psychological studies that conclude this is, in fact, what is happening? It would certainly be nice to have such a reference. Additionally, while this is an explanation, I would like to add a comment that it does "resolve" the "paradox" since individuals still fail to have a consistent estimation of the proportion of each color in the urn. If its alright with you, I will make a few changes to clear up the explanation, add a reference if you have one, add the sentence pointing out this does entirely resolve the paradox, and copy this discussion to the talk page of that article. Cool? Thanks for the discussion! --Kzollman 05:38, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

i know a lot of psychological studies where effect of an experimentator on the results was recorded. take famous milgram experiment for example. i do not know any psychological studies to that effect about ellsberg's paradox, but based on the above methodology they wouldn't be hard to do. though, frankly, i doubt that anyone would decide to check benefits of loader's cooperation - at this point, there are pretty obvious for me. anyway, i'll will be on a look out for a good psychological reference. sure, u welcome to make any changes u find appropriate and big thanks for help with clarifications. - unmet 20:32 jun26 2005

Mafia

Why did you revert my edits? I spent a lot of time consolidating all the characters which were analogous to each other. For exmaple the guardian angel and the sherif are the same thing. If there is some problem you had with it, could you let me know? Savidan 08:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC

dear savidan! thx a lot for your contribution to mafia webpage, however here are reasons for my revert: your line: "but emceeing(?) the game—asksing(?) everyone to close", complete rework of an article structure w/out any discussion, changing rules description - thus making inconsistent an article itself - you are writing about 9:2 scheme of playing mafia, when minimal requirement of 5 is stated in summary box nearby and quite a few more. please, lets not even talk about wars. lets just discuss your changes first in the article's discussion list and then implement ones we agreed upon? Unmet 19:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Helen Keller

Hello. Thanks for adding your interesting bit of info to Helen Keller regarding Meshcheryakov. However, this needs to be properly cited: just claiming that this is in his dissertation is not enough (what dissertation? when? where?). Please read Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources for information about how to cite properly. Thanks! Doctormatt 21:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

hey, ty for all help. what do yo think would be the better source - embedded interview in russian - http://scepsis.ru/library/id_1180.html where Meshcheryakov's dissertation is quoted or an English translation of his book (A. Meshcheryakov, Awakening to Life, Progress Publishers Moscow, 1979) - with lengthy case discussion (pages 55-70), but without reference to the dissertation? Thanks and take care! Unmet 01:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the english translation of his book would be the most appropriate here, since this is the english language Wikipedia, and is probably easier to get one's hands on than the dissertation itself. I think this would be an excellent reference to add to the article. Cheers, Doctormatt 04:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)