NO.PZ201511190100000406
问题如下:
Patel’s comment in his risk tolerance questionnaire regarding the Private Wealth Investment Committee fails to recognize which bias?
选项:
A.
Social proof.
B.
Confirmation bias.
C.
Gambler’s fallacy.
解释:
A is correct.
Social proof is a belief in which individuals are biased to follow the beliefs of a group. The structure of Garnier’s Private Wealth Investment Committee indicates that they may be susceptible to a social proof bias. The committee meets to discuss and debate each security and then votes on which will be approved. Committee members may wrongly favor the judgment of others, often without being fully aware that they are doing so. The process of reaching a consensus will usually narrow the range of views. If a group decision process does not encourage private information held by individual committee members to be shared fully with others before a decision is made, the decision may fail to combine the collective wisdom of the group. There is no evidence that this committee encourages private information.
备注:这道题出的不太好,原版书给的答案A。Patel“一旦知道investment committee支持了某项投资,他的风险容忍程度会显著提高”,这句话既反映的是confirmation bias。social proof和herding是同义词,羊群效应,是一种从众的行为。Gambler's fallacy是赌徒谬误,比如连续五次抛出硬币的正面,认为第六次抛出硬币反面的概率非常高,但事实上,抛出反面的概率仍为50%,Patel没有这样的表现。不用纠结选项。
这道题我以为是选择没有体现出的偏差。那从委员会确实是social proof ,从个人确实是confirmation 。那没有体现出的却是赌徒效应啊。看了其他的问题讲解,那是不是以后不管看到啥样的背景,不管三七二十一,只要是投资委员会,就是social proof?题目的背景说的是,只要投委会认定,投资者的风险容忍度就会提高,那应该问是存在什么样的偏差?这当时是social proof。那什么叫存在偏差,还没识别?这是啥逻辑?照这样,无论识别不识别的出,那都是social proof啊,那题目fail有啥意义?