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
24.
It can most reasonably be ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
When states try ██ ██████ ██████ ███████ █████ █████████ ████ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ██ ███ █████ ████ ████ ███ ██ █████ ███
Not supported. The author doesn’t suggest that states trying to recover territory are usually misled.
b
Government decision makers ████████████ ████████ ███ █████████████ ██ █████ █████████ ████████ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ████████ █████ █████████ ████████ ███████
Supported by the fact that the author believes the observations in P2 “are quite salient to scholars of international conflict and crisis.” If the author didn’t believe that government decision-makers evaluate national risks in a similar manner to how they evaluate personal risk, then the example in P2, which concerns personal decision-making, wouldn’t be relevant to scholars of international conflict.
c
A new method ███ ██████████ ███ █████████ █████████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ████ █ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████████
The author doesn’t present any “new” method for predicting and mediating international conflict. Although the author does identify certain factors that might bear upon government decision-making, that doesn’t constitute a method for predicting and mediating international conflict.
d
Truly rational decision ██████ ██ █ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ███ ████ ███████████ ████ ██ ██████ ████████████ ███ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ███
The author doesn’t suggest that rational decision-making is rare in international crises; the author simply presents research showing that decision-makers sometimes consider other factors besides a theoretical cost-benefit analysis.
e
Contrary to previous ████████████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████████ █████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ████████ ████████ █████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ██████
The author never suggests that people are more likely to take big risks when their assessment of benefits “matches” objectively measured costs. Rather, people are more likely to take big risks when their subjective assessment of benefits is high enough to justify their subject assessment of potential costs.