First, it assumes that there is some knowable "optimal" choice that gets the most physical reward, be it money or sugar. It is foolish to pretend that this is a state that exists the real world. Don't @ me with "no one really believes this" bc I have talked to scientists who do.
-
Show this thread
-
Second, it assumes that maximizing the physical reward is a obviously best. But what if the subject values ease? What if the subject values safety? And what if choosing an easy, safe strategy produces some physical reward anyway? Why stress over getting a little bit more?
4 replies 6 retweets 115 likesShow this thread -
I'm beginning to question the assumption that exploration is a quality of good decision making. In human work, it assumes that people have lived safe lives where seeking information has resulted in good outcomes. This is not a valid assumption for much of humanity.
3 replies 21 retweets 153 likesShow this thread -
In animal work, this assumption creates lots of puzzling observations, where animals seem to do something "nonoptimal" that actually reveals *we* don't understand what they value. For example, mice come from an ecological niche where exploration means they are likely to be eaten.
3 replies 10 retweets 124 likesShow this thread -
The focus on information seeking as an active process necessary to good decision making conflates exploration and strategy selection. It is an accident of laboratory tasks that are set up to reward exploration.
1 reply 6 retweets 87 likesShow this thread -
But what if information could be gathered without overt exploration? We find that this is the case - for female mice more than males. Stay tuned!
19 replies 5 retweets 187 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @NicolaGrissom
do you mean this in a way fundamentally differently from, say, an animal sitting in front of a screen integrating new perceptual information (even when it's a blank screen)? if that analogy makes sense
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @neuroecology
i do, as it turns out. for simplicity, until the paper is together, think about how decisions can be influenced by pavlovian cues, that no one can explore for, as much as by operant associations
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @NicolaGrissom @neuroecology
Awesome thread. BTW have you seen this https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-016-0017 … by
@ProfData? It shows exactly what you describe happening in the supermarket. People prefer to buy stuff they've already bought as opposed to exploring new stuff often.@adamhornsby is working on more as we type too.1 reply 7 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @neuroecology and
Omg I hadn't seen this and it's totally in line with this intuition, thank you!!
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
You are super welcome. 
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.