Is Tiger Woods Loss Avrse Analysis

Tiger Woods stats on the PGA Tour are truly unbeatable. He has won 79 events on the PGA Tour, has won 14 major championships, and set the most consecutive number of cuts made at 143, according to PGATour.com. Additionally, he has set records in all areas of the game: best record of winning a tournament after a 54-hole lead, 54-4, best percentage of wins, 25.2%, only player to win 3 consecutive US Amateur Championships, only player to win all 4 major championships in a row, lowest PGA Tour average in a season, 67.79 and lowest average in PGA Tour history, and has won more World Golf Championships with 16 and the next closest has only won 3.

Rational decision making seems pretty straightforward, but in this article Dr. David Fassler, a psychiatry professor at the University of Vermont College of Medicine clarifies that,

During the Enlightenment, the topics of rational thinking, logic, and how those ideas affected individuals' actions were widely debated, and they are still controversial today. Although humans believe that decisions are based on rational thinking, recent studies have found that the opposite is true. Humans are more influenced by their emotions than logic due to the overpowering characteristic of feelings, and the inability to make decisions without them.

This week’s reading Predictably Irrational was very valuable, and informative. While coming up with so many ways of thinking when it comes to behavior, I had no idea even existed. We talked last week about being rational, but this week and this week’s reading it discussed more about irrational, and predictable behavior. At the end of this summary I hope to have showed and understand the difference when it comes to irrational and predictable theories that can disrupt behavior, and decision making.

Challenges are presented to people on the daily basis. What to eat, drink, where they have to go, who they need to see, and etc... These things all impact the decision making process and the decisions made. In financial decision making, highly successful people do not make investment decisions based on past sunk outcomes, rather by examining choices with no regard for past experiences; this approach conflicts with what one may expect. In addition to past experiences, there are several cognitive biases that influence decision making.

Decision-making is always critical in people’s day-to-day lives. Individuals have to make choices between the very many options they have at their disposal. In doing so, sound judgement is needed, accompanied by much sobriety (Fay, & Montague, 2014). However, in trying to make sound decisions people always base their opinions on certain reference points. In fact, psychologists have generated much data, which shows that people rely so much on the pieces of information that they get to the extent that their judgement is affected. This usually presents the challenge of not making the best decision (Kansal & Sing, 2015).

Personal decision making is influenced by a range of biases, many of which we are unconscious of. Being more aware of these biases reveals how individual decision making can be improved. (Reference…)

Figure 5.2 compares behavior and empirical expectations across the six decision problems. For each decision problem a subject is classified as either a “norm complier” or a “non-complier”. A norm complier is one whose behavior matches his/her expectations of the typical play of others. Rather, Looks = Empirical Expectations. Figure 5.2, then, calculates the average value of the two for the subset of norm compliers and the average value for the subset of the non-compliers, and considers the ratio of the two.

The book “Predictably Irrational” was written by Dan Ariely in 2008, and it is considered to be a best-seller in the United States. Dan Ariely is a professor of Duke University and works in the new field of Behavioral Economics. The book is mostly focused on helping us better understand our decision-making processes, and also become an unavoidable source of information when creating public policy. Ariely focused in why people make irrational decisions, He conducted 13 experiments and he explains every single one of them. He also teaches us that we have no idea of things and also keeping too many doors open has a higher than what those opportunities really worth. In addition Dan Ariely want to teach us the mysterious way of the human mind, of why we do what we do in certain situations and why we act totally irrationally. The author gives different examples on experiment made on top universities.i will give brief summary of most of the chapters, in order to better understand the main idea that the author tried to bring by writing the book.

We can usefully predict the behaviour of others in group contexts by assuming that they are acting rationally. This is the rational actor hypothesis used throughout the social sciences. To usefully apply this idea we need a definition of rationality; the one we will analyze is that people maximize some utility in deciding on an action. To understand what is meant by utility consider the following concept. A payoff is a reward in a game that has a definite expected worth (e.g. money) that is known to both players of a game. A utility is then something which causes payoff maximization, the maximization of such payoffs by players, given the information available to them plus the assumption that other players are playing to maximize their payoffs. A key assumption of the model is that maximizing a utility leads to a fixed set of preferences, in order for any sort of uniqueness to be present in predictions. This idea of rationality through payoff maximization rests on the Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem. This theorem says that given four axioms (defined in the Glossary): completeness, transitivity, continuity, and independence, there always exists a utility function which a player in a game maximizes when making a decision. My contention in this paper is that utility maximization and therefore the rational actor hypothesis is too broad of an idea to be of practical use.

For nearly half a century rational choice theory (RCT) has dominated analyses of political, social, and economic sciences. Due to the theory’s objectivity and systematic predictability, rational choice is able to provide a comforting procedure to studying the decision-making process. However to truly gauge how and why actors make decisions, a more diversified and complex degree of emotions and behaviors must also be analyzed. Despite our efforts to prove the contrary, actors are human, therefore subjectivity and carefully crafted belief systems often contradict what would be considered rational choices.

Most, if not all Americans, are familiar with the story of Batman and his alter ego Bruce Wayne. As a small child Bruce 's parents were brutally gunned down in front of him prompting him to don the cape and mask to rid Gotham city of injustice. In the 2005 movie adaptation starring Christian Bale, Batman is asked why he so selflessly protects the city. He replies, “It 's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.” I believe this illustrates that the decision to do good, and evil, are rational choices made by people who make carefully weighted decisions to accomplish their goals. This is an example of a belief known as Rational Choice Theory. Today I would like to discuss Rational Choice Theory, its origins in history, its methods to predict and eliminate crime and examples of it from modern cases. I would like to show the reader, beyond reasonable doubt, that Rational Choice Theory is the best way to explain the majority of crimes and criminal activity.

However the consequences of making a choice that may seem rational is not always taken into consideration as in many cases the choice taken may be actually irrational. For example, somebody deciding or not they should buy a sandwich with limited money, will certainly consider the immediate satisfaction of their hunger, but it is dependant on the individual how much importance they would give to the fact that they wouldn't be able to get the bus back home later that night and would catch a cold from walking back, resulting in days off work and subsequent loss of income. It could be said therefore that anyone who bought the sandwich would be considered 'irrational'. The assumption that one is always in possession of all their rational senses is a dangerous one to make. It can hardly be assumed that the decision of anyone already very drunk on a night out to buy another alcoholic beverage to be rational

The effect of irrelevant information on decision making has been studied in the context of psychology (Gaeth and Shanteau 1984, Kahneman and Tversky 1973, Lu and Proctor 2001, Tversky and Kahneman 1974), education (Rice, 1975), accounting (Thaler and Johnson 1990), decision science (Sengupta 1995), and behavioral economics (Thaler 2016). For example, Kahneman and Tversky (1973) find that people respond differently to a probability question (e.g., whether someone is an engineer or a lawyer) when given no description than when given a description that conveys irrelevant information (e.g., this person is a 30-year-old man). Likewise, Tversky and Kahneman (1974) find that even a random number determined by a spinning wheel affects the estimates of unknown quantities. More recently, Thaler (2016) observes that there

Behavioural economics helps to explain that assumptions which have been taken are not always borne out. It’s related to physiology, economics and other related disciplines to demonstrate that what actually people thing and what are their expectations in the future if changes happen. The findings of behavioural economics have organized in a variety of ways. When in the time of decision making as content between two system people are likely to rely on first system which leads to a predictable deviations from the expectations of standard economic theory.