In the first example, is the reason you prefer the dice roll because you enjoy the thrill of the uncertainty? If so, even though you end up poorer by taking the dice trade(s) vs. no trade, you've experienced the thrill of the trade(s). And if that thrill is at least as valuable as the pennies you are poorer, then there is no irrationality. Have I missed something?
No, if it's because you enjoy the thrill, that wouldn't violate independence. You have to regard the state of affairs in itself where you have uncertainty as better than the other, even with all else held constant.
Got it. Is the claim of irrationality contentious at all then? Seems like a no-brainer, right? Would certainly violate the standard axioms of rationality in economic theory.
Yes, it's contentious, see, for example, the Allais paradox as well as the Ellsberg paradox. But I agree with you that independence is intuitively obvious.
In the first example, is the reason you prefer the dice roll because you enjoy the thrill of the uncertainty? If so, even though you end up poorer by taking the dice trade(s) vs. no trade, you've experienced the thrill of the trade(s). And if that thrill is at least as valuable as the pennies you are poorer, then there is no irrationality. Have I missed something?
No, if it's because you enjoy the thrill, that wouldn't violate independence. You have to regard the state of affairs in itself where you have uncertainty as better than the other, even with all else held constant.
Got it. Is the claim of irrationality contentious at all then? Seems like a no-brainer, right? Would certainly violate the standard axioms of rationality in economic theory.
Yes, it's contentious, see, for example, the Allais paradox as well as the Ellsberg paradox. But I agree with you that independence is intuitively obvious.