Self-study
P1
Recent investigations into the psychology of decision making have sparked interest among scholars seeking to understand why governments sometimes take gambles that appear theoretically unjustifiable on the basis of expected costs and benefits. ███
Intro to Topic ·
Recent psychology findings are interesting for political scientists
The political scientists are trying to understand why governments take unreasonable risks.
Recent Findings ·
Risk-taking is common strategy to avoid loss
People's subjective value can be significantly different from objective value. This is might be explained by loss aversion, the idea that being in possession of something makes that thing subjectively worth more to me than it's objectively worth. For example, if I stand to lose something that I already own, I will take risks to avoid that loss. But, if I stand to gain that same thing, I won't be equally likely to take risks.
P2
███████████ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ████████ ██████ ██████ █████████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ █████████████ ███ █████████ ████ ██████ █ █████ ███████ ████ █ ████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ███
Previous Theory ·
Risk-avoidance is the generally applicable strategy
Previously, the theory was that people prefer to be risk-avoiding, not risk-taking. If fact, they would need sufficiently high payoff to compensate for taking the risk.
Example ·
$300 is the minimum payoff for 50% chance of willing the payoff or losing $100
Even though, rationally, any amount more than $100 yields positive expected value. For example, I'd take the gamble if the payoff was $101. Half the time I lose $100 but the other half I gain $101. So each time I play, I expect to gain $0.50. But most people won't even play for $200 or $250. They need the payoff to be $300 in order to play. That's how much they hate taking a risk. This illustrates the theory that people prefer risk-avoidance.
Challenge: Recent Findings ·
Risk-taking is common strategy to avoid loss
If the choice is between (1) a sure loss or (2) a significant chance of losing even more + a small chance of losing nothing, then the preference is for the risk-taking choice.
P3
████ ████████████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ █████████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███
Application ·
Recent findings of risk-taking as applied to international politics
Example ·
Falkland Islands / Malvinas
Both Britain and Argentina was faced with choosing between (1) a sure loss of the island or (2) a significant chance of an even greater loss (war) + a small chance of no loss (get to keep the island). They made the risk-taking choice. Each party's subjective value of the island was greater than the objective value.
Passage Style
Single position
22.
Suppose that a country seizes █ █████ ██ █████████ ████ █████ ███████ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ █ ███████████ ████████ ████ █ ███████████ ████ ██ ███████ █████████ ████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ████
a
the country's actions ███ ██████████ ████ ██████████ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████████
This is supported, because the previously accepted theory about risk-taking involves the assumption that actors “will choose a risky venture over a sure thing only when the expected measurable value of the outcome is sufficiently high to compensate the decision maker for taking the risk.” Here, we’re told that the territory seized has “great mineral wealth” – that’s evidence of a lot of value from seizing the territory. In addition, the risk is “easily tolerable”; so the action wasn’t very risky. The country that seized the territory was not acting in a way that goes against the previously accepted views of risk-taking.
b
the new research ████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ███ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ ████████ ██████ ███ ████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████
c
in spite of ███████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ███ ████████ ████████ ███████ ████ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ █████
The research described doesn’t involve making judgments about what kind of objective is actually worth or not worth the risk. The research concerns how nations think about decisions; it doesn’t support judgments about what is objectively a good or bad decision.
d
the facts of ███ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ █████ ████ █████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ███ ████████ ████████
Not supported, because the country could be motivated simply by weighing benefits and risks. The benefit is high, because there’s great mineral wealth in the territory. The risks are minimal. We don’t need to cite other considerations to explain why the country acted the way it did.
e
the country's leaders ████ ██████ ████████████ ████████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ████
Not supported, because the country could be motivated simply by weighing benefits and risks. The benefit is high, because there’s great mineral wealth in the territory. The risks are minimal. We don’t need to cite other considerations, such as the perception that the land was previously taken from it, to explain why the country acted the way it did.