Towards a Mechanization of Real-Life Decisions

  • Per-Erik Malmnäs
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 236)


One reason why man has so far been remarkably successful is his awareness of the limited capacity nature has bestowed upon him and his proficiency in making suitable tools to increase his ability in various respects. An exception to this rule, however, is man as a decision maker: in this field he relies upon his intuition to a large extent, especially in the evaluative phase of a decision process, and he rarely questions this state of affairs, even when he is far from satisfied with the time needed to reach a decision and the arguments he is able to present in support of a given decision. This may in some cases be due to ignorance or unwillingness to change ingrained habits, but, at least in Sweden, many decision makers are deeply suspicious of existing formal methods of evaluating alternative courses of actions, their main argument being that these methods demand too much of the decision maker in terms of precision to be of any use to him. This need not be the case, though, as I hope to show in this paper: existing methods of evaluating alternatives can be used to differentiate between them even when the methods are based upon vague or numerically imprecise pieces of information. Moreover, this differentiation can, in most cases at least, be based on algorithms that are simple enough to be handled by existing computers.


Decision Maker Optimum Alternative Probability Part Finite List Maximin Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Good, IJ., 1950. Probability and the Weighing of Evidence, Griffin, London.Google Scholar
  2. Gärdenfors, P., and Sahlin, N.E., 1982. Unreliable probabilities, risk-taking, and decision making. Synthese 53, 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hodges, J.L., and Lehmann, E.L., 1952. The use of previous experience in reaching statistical decisions. Ann. Math. Stat. 23, 396–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kotler, E. and Menges, G., 1976. Entscheidungen bei unvollständiger Information, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  5. Lehmann, E.L., 1959. Testing Statistical Hypotheses, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Levi, I., 1974. On indeterminate probabilities. Journal of Philosophy 71, 391–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Levi, I., 1986. The Paradoxes of Allais and Ellsberg. Economics and Philosophy, 2, 2353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lovass, L. and Simonovits, M., 1990. The Mixing Rate of Markov Chains, an Isoperimetric Inequality and Computing the Volume. Proceedings 31:st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 346–354.Google Scholar
  9. Malmnäs, P.E., 1990. Real-life Decisions Expected Utility and Effective Computability,Research Report HSFR 677/87.Google Scholar
  10. Malmnäs, P.E., 1990a. Axiomatic Justifications of the Utility Principle: a Formal Investigation,Research Report HSFR 677/87.Google Scholar
  11. Smith, C.A.B., 1961. Consistency in Statistical Inference and Decision. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 23, 1–25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Per-Erik Malmnäs
    • 1
  1. 1.Stockholm UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations