Choices, Values and Frames, authored by Daniel kahneman and Amos Tversky

Abstracts
Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:

Choices, Values and Frames, authored by Daniel kahneman and Amos Tversky
In the research paper titled Choices, Values and Frames, authored by Daniel kahneman and Amos Tversky; offers some insightful information on the aspect of making choices and the psychological determinants related to risks of the choices and the consequences perceived.According to the paper, risky choices are made without the knowledge of the consequences that come from making the choice. Reason being that, most of the consequences that relate to the risky choices is determined by unforeseen circumstances. If one makes the choice to go to war with the enemy, there are a lot factors that are unseen and could relate to the perceptions and the objectives of the enemy including their resolve. Gambling with a choice means one has evaluated the gains and the losses that are aligned with probability quotients. In light decisions that are coupled with sure expectations, most people tend to go with these while averting to risk involved with a gamble that has almost the same gains. In reference to a research paper written by Daniel Bernoulli, the tendencies for people to avoid risks decreases with increasing wealth.The outcomes of a choice largely determine the choices that people make contrary to monetary outcomes of their decisions. According to Bernoulli, the subjective values perceived in the risks is a concave functions that relies on the money element. However the psychophysical measurements show that the subjective value is actually a function of the size of the gains which assumes a concave shape. According to the article, when the functions values relative to gains and the losses are perceived together, they form an s-shaped function.Gains are more attractive than the losses and therefore the differences in the steepness of the curves. The losses tend to be steeper while the gains are not relative to aversive elements of making the choices related to the two possible outcomes. The status quo determines the positivity or the negativity of the outcomes of a given choice.
Application of the research
In an example at the workplace most of the choices are framed with the values and the losses that are expected. When making a choice regarding my future at the company, are also informed by the status quo. At the moment the company is offering a comfortable position that has a decent pay and favorable working and limited pressure. This aspects and conditions of the current company and the position alongside the benefits accruing to the position form the status quo that I relate with. When offered another position at a different company, where I may get better pay, less flexible hours and higher pressure but with added benefits such fully sponsored vacations, it may be tempting, but the values attached to the new positions are too risky. At the moment, the current company is relatively small but it is making continuous progress and at the same time I have formed solid relationships with the management and my colleagues. At the same time there higher chances that if the company expands I may take up more responsibilities thereby driving my career forwards.
At the new company, there are leaning curves to the working conditions, new colleagues, extreme pressure coupled with better pay. Upsetting the status quo where I have a comfortable position that is not well paying for a well-paying job that offers more uncertainties and better pay presents positive and negative outcomes as well as value and loss situations.In light of the possible outcomes of taking the new job or sticking with the old job can be related to the context of the research paper by Daniel kahneman and Amos Tversky (Kahneman & Tvesky, 1984),.
Theories of Risk Perception; Who Fears what and why authored by Aaron Wildavsky and Karl Dake
In the research paper titled Theories Of Risk Perception; Who Fears What And Why authored by both Aaron Wildavsky and Karl Dake, reviews why some people view certain elements in nature as dangerous and fear them while other have a different perception of the same elements. In the past, there has been a varying perspectives applied to the studies trying to establish the elements of risk; however alternative formulations are still missing. Certain scientific breakthrough that in the past have been considered as the stepping stones towards the technological advances in today’sscience are now considered dangerous relative to the development in the technology. Various elements that could harm, the human body and the environment are a common stage for controversy driving some of the people to fear while others are not affected. The paper tries to establish why there are different levels of perceptions between different people. What scare one person, may seem to have no effect on another and the differences are sublime. As such different types of danger affect different people differently. One of the theories that have been considered in light of these differences is the theory of knowledge. This relates to the fact that people will fear certain element given that they knowthat that element is dangerous; as such their fear is informed by knowledge. The other theory that relates to the risk aversionbetween different people is the personality theory. Some people have a personality that pushes them to seek thrills in dangerous feats, while other are reserved and like to play safe. Political theory on theory on the other hand relates to the way people relate different aspects that present a danger in terms of struggle and the interests. Cultural theorist on the other had cite that people choose what t fear and who much fear to accord certain aspects in live in order to maintain their way of life and some form of balance. Using a total of 36 concerns listed by people with perceptions to their environment and a selected 25 technologies with reference to their perceived risks, benefits and use; the study tries to establish the public responses to fear. Conclusively, trust and cultural biases play a major role in how fear is allocated to different aspects in life relative to the societal instructions.
Application
Fear of flights is driven by the fact that, when an airplane takes off from the run way, my only hope of landing safely is tagged to the plane technology and the ability of the pilot to effectively interact with the systems on the plane. Planes are rated as safer that cars, however, the fear of having to float through hundreds of miles across the destinations and above ground moving at supersonic speed is highly determined my cultural biases. Chances of surviving a plane crash when it happens are quite slim. Having to fall from more than 10000 meters towards the ground and hanging on helplessly as a plane spirals into a deadly dive is scary. However, the act that I can do nothing about it and can only rely on the systems on the plane and a pilot’s skills to save my life is scarier than driving into a ditch, as it may only take fewer seconds impact, other than minutes of agonizing wait to die. The perception of trust and cultural biases thus informs my fear of flying and more importantly the fear of a plane crash (Wildavsky & Dake, 1990).
Neutral, Omni Partial Rule-Making, by Green R. N.
According to moral theorists Immanuel Kant, the deontological principle on morality states that happiness can never be used as a determinant of moral choices that one makes. This forms the NORM- type approach to morality and has formed the basis for some of the moral theorists such as, John Rawls. Moral reasoning as such, when viewed in this light is the source that most of us appeal to when faced with an aspect that present conflict of interests. As such morality within the society is pegged on the social judgments that are used to determine what is acceptable and what is not. Doing something in public may be viewed as unacceptable while anot...