Talk:Decision theory

Decision theory vs. Detection theory

In signal processing/statistics/communications, this is known as detection theory. I don't want to say that one name is correct over the other, but I also don't want two articles heavily overlaping. It seems decision theory is geared more toward "making decisions" (1 ton of guns & 3 tons of butter vs. 2 tons of guns & 1 ton of butter) while detection theory is more about choosing/detecting (is the signal present or not?).

I think there's room for both since the technical and less-technical call them different things... Cburnett 05:24, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Further point, Category:Decision theory has only one parent category: Category:Management. Cburnett 05:25, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I can't see that detection/decision theory are the same at all. They cover some of the same ground, but in quite different ways; eg decision theory seems much more general (even abstract), though MCDA etc is very applied. Possibly it could be argued that detection theory is a specific application of decision theory, but I don't know enough about it to say whether that's a helpful way of putting it. Rd232 09:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I'm not sure if these two things are the same (I suppose Rational choice theory might be ideal decision theory and thus a distinct theory), but if they're not the same, the difference between them probably needs to be discussed on each of the pages. KSchutte 19:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Rational choice theory is the same thing as decision theory, but the are usually used in slightly different contexts. The term decision theory is more often used when describing it as a prescriptive framework for how to behave rationally, whereas the term rational choice theory is more often used to discuss it as a descriptive framework of how people really do act. In other words, rational choice theories model people as behaving according to decision theory. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Rational choice theory would be a subset of decicion theory. They should have their seperate articles.radek 01:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

They are nothing alike. Rational choice is a framework for examining human behavior. In many ways, decision theory is a mathematical/statistical approach to issues that may in fact extend beyond human behavior--see the discussion on decision theory vs. detection theory above. h27kim 11:08, 20 March, 2006 (PST)

This is bit imprecise, and also an overstatement. In my Decision Theory course (broader than "a mathematical/statistical approach"), I treat Rational Choice Theory as a central part of the theoretical core. Thus, I agree with Radek, above, who defines RCT as a subset of DT. Nonetheless, I do see the two fields as distinct enough to justify two entries. RCT is a body of theory largely aimed at circumscribing ad hoc (and irrational) explanations of behavior in a wide variety of fields and replacing it with hypotheses that seek to explain that behavior with explanations that give more weight to the rationality, albeit messy, thinking of the agents. In this way RCT is commonly associated with the Chicago school of economics, specifically with Gary Becker, who sees it as a duty of economists to find the rationality below the surface. Decision theory in contrast to RCT seeks instead to develop insights from multiple sources (including but not limited to RCT) while attempting to develop global (normative) prescriptions for making hard decisions. MFortunato

I agree with Radek, and others. A further distinction is that Decision Theory deals primarily with decisions under uncertainty, while Rational Choice theory does not. The intersection between the two, broadly speaking, is expected utility theory. JQ 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose -- They are at least as different as Management science and Operations research MPS 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose -- Rational choice theory is a subset of decision theory. The are many theories of decision-making (such as prospect theory) which do not posit rational choice. Rational choice and decision theory are clearly not the same.--Ossanha 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose -- Ditto, while I don't see that decision theory is that well defined, it has to encompass a range of theories about how the choice is made, RC being just one of them.

Oppose -- per above. I guess that's enough to take the merger tags off. ~ trialsanderrors 18:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the urge to merge --I agree with oppositions to merger expressed above. I hope no-one will still consider it deletable after strong opposition to merge above. They are different topics. Both these article should remain independent.

Prof.Sadiq 17:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the urge to merge --I agree with opposition to merger.

Oppose the urge to merge -- These two subjects are related but not the same. Decision Theory is the broad term for studying how people do and should make decisions. It includes the judgment and decision making research coming from pyschology, the normative side, and the Bayesian decision theory research coming from Bayesian statistics, the prescriptive side. Decision Analysis is the convergence of these areas of research. The following description of decision analysis is taken from the Lexicon of Decision Analysis from the Decision Analysis Society "A decision maker might employ decision analysis, which is a structured way of thinking about how the action taken in the current decision would lead to a result. In doing this, one distinguishes three features of the situation: the decision to be made, the chance and unknown events which can affect the result, and the result itself. Decision analysis then constructs models, logical and perhaps even mathematical representations of the relationships within and between these three features of the decision situation. The models then allow the decision maker to estimate the possible implications of each course of action that he might take, so that he can better understand the relationship between his actions and his objectives."

User:JasonRWMerrick 3:00 pm, 16 March 2007

pragmatic v formal

I am at a loss as to the difference between the formal approach and the pragmatic approach to decision-making. Any ideas?

This is largely a scholarly distinction -- there is in most fields considerable room to study the theory of something without it leading to greater competence in the practical use of it. But in decision theory the question is especially well motivated, as it is unclear why one would wish to understand the theory of making decisions if it does not lead to making better decisions in practice. For most practitioners, the actual model of decision making they would choose to use in most situations would not be the perfect model, but instead a "good enough" model -- admitting at the outset that the theoretical crieria are not being fully or perfectly met for that approach to be theoretically perfect. (One often doesn't even know one's own preferences well enough to say whether the functional form of the utility function, for example, is just right.) Knowledge of the formal approach does however inform the pragmatic decision maker -- knowing that you are using an imperfect but approximate method, and knowing where you are making pragmatic compromises, is usually worth knowing. MFortunato

In the literature there is no consenus how exactly the terms 'decision theory', 'game theory' and alike are to be used. It seems important to me, though, that at least the following distinctions are kept in mind: -> 1 Person vs >1 person -> normative vs descriptive Sometimes we talk about what rational people do and hence are in the normative domain; at other times we explain or predict actual human behavious and hence are in the descriptive domain. -> Aximotic vs Interpretative Correctly applying axiomatic rules to axioms and other theorems is one thing, interpreting (parts of or the whole of) the calculus quite another. Whether or not rational choice theory really is about the right concept of rationality (if there is such a thing at all), for example, is a matter of interpretation rather than pure calculus.

'Game theory' tends to be used for >1 person-games that are interpreted in order to describe reality. 'Decision theory' tends to be used for 1- and >1-person-games, is mainly normative, and deals a lot with the issues of the right interpretation. GIV

results depends on another (but not on each other) / did you mean: results are interdependent?

If so correct the phrasing. If not, write within a parenthesis the sense in simple English.

I would have written: results are co-configured via an interdependence connectome

because the connectome is important: a. not all results are linked, b. not all results are immediately linked without intermediate stages, c. not all relationships have a single input (mono-link), d. some of the results might not connect (dump result: dump results aren't necessarily wrong if the program is [self]evolving. the perfect program tests some alterations with some dumped results, and usually few dumped results if wisely (and arbitrarily) selected are beneficial), e. some (usually few and not all) results are not interdependent (for example direct input as output, in few cases that's the correct answer)

Wikipedia assignment: Communication Theory & Frameworks

This article is the subject of an assignment for a Georgetown University course between August 2024 and December 2024. Student editors and contributions TBA. Operator3476 (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)