I got this 
, but for anyone who didn’t (You loss!) these are quotes from the wonderful Weird Al song “I Lost on Jeopardy”.
Back to the thread.
This is a fascinating question. I would absolutely not be surprised that there’s a serious bias towards reactions towards risk/reward when you have absolute confidence in a basic living style regardless of the results. Heck, I made it clear when I talked about out-of-budget expenses v unexpected windfalls.
Please let us know more if you find it!
As I recall, the usual formulation is that a person who has $100 is likely to turn down a chance to risk $50 to get another hundred.
Those are really good odds if you run the trial over and over. But in real life there’s no guarantee you’ll get to do that, so people tend to ask for irrationally high premiums on any at-risk value proposition.
Then there’s also the way that marginalism changes the calculus. If you already have resources such that the loss of $50 doesn’t mean much to you, then of course you’ll take bigger risks.
I’m not aware of studies in Africa, but it would be interesting. Kahneman’s ideas came in large part from his experience in the Israeli Air Force, though I’d grant that’s still Western.
One chart she showed was organ donation rates across Europe, both Western and former Eastern bloc countries. It varied wildly. When she taught this she’d ask her class for explanations. It turns out the numbers are correlated to whether donation was the default case in these countries, with those where it was the default having much higher donation rates.
Yes, this behavior is irrational, which is the point.
In the old Jeopardy all contestants got to keep their winnings. They found that certain ones had dollar goals, and if they reached them during the game they would stop playing, never try to buzz in with the risk of losing money. Made for a terrible game, and the current one has only the winner keep the money, and the other two contestants get fixed prizes.
Something very few knew:
The Last Decision by the World’s Leading Thinker on Decisions: Shortly before Daniel Kahneman died last March, he emailed friends a message: He was choosing to end his own life in Switzerland. Some are still struggling with his choice.
By most accounts—although not his own—Kahneman was still in reasonably good physical and mental health when he chose to die. Kahneman was widely mourned nearly a year ago when his death was announced. Only close friends and family knew, though, that it transpired at an assisted-suicide facility in Switzerland. Some are still struggling to come to terms with his decision.
[non-paywalled repost of Wall Street Journal article]
This analysis of the book shows that some of the research his ideas were based on was quite flimsy:
And here is Kahneman himself acknowledging this:
Regardless of the reproducibility of the specific findings, his general ideas on behavioral economics and the irrationality of decision-making are sound and have been corroborated elsewhere. Motivated reasoning, for instance, is well-studied, so although his chapter A Machine for Jumping to Conclusions scores poorly in terms of scientific rigour, the underlying conclusions on the concept are not flawed. And I think that’s not too unacceptable when it comes to pop-science literature.
In response to OP, these questions are hard to answer honestly once you’ve been primed to think about your subconscious psychological processes. The principles can be shown under “natural” circumstances, but as soon as the participant knows that they are being tested for their decision making, it is less likely they’ll decide inconsistently.
Edit - and I’ve just realised I have replied to a year-old thread, thinking it had just popped up. Sorry! 
Nevermind.
Everyone seems to like power and authority. The fact there are so many committees tells me everything I need to agree on his point.
Not a fan of the rest of his opinions though, fast or slow it’s all thinking and it all matters.
Are you implying that he claimed that “fast” and “slow” thinking don’t both matter?