Talk:Hyperbolic discounting

message: The sentence "Whether high rates of hyperbolic discounting precede addictions or vice-versa is currently unknown, although some studies have reported that high-rate discounting rats are more likely to consume alcohol[12] and cocaine[13]" was difficult to read. The first part of the sentence can probably be omitted. Correlation does not imply causation.
Agree with the comment below from two years ago. The graph is totally conflitant with the text. If Im wrong, please explain why.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.85.67.80 (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So-called "experimenter trust effects" have been examined in the literature on discount functions, and they don't suffice to explain the diverse range of observed evidence.  However, you are very correct that in principle they could explain the example quoted above. Jeremy Tobacman 16:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I know you guys know a lot about this stuff, but the intro paragraph needs to be reworked. As a person with casual interest in economics it doesn't even make sense. Maybe a simple editing would be fine.After reading the intro am I supposed to believe that hyperbolic discounting means as a human I prefer smaller payments sooner when I could get larger payments later? --69.140.59.32 16:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficult wording

message: In the first section pigeon studies are mentioned: "In studies of pigeons, for example the pigeon is given two buttons: button A provides a small amount of food quickly while button B provides more seed but after a delay. The bird then experiments for a while and settles on preferring A or B."
But what does this say about hyperbolic discounting??? Please clarify, otherwise it should be removed. Lova Falk talk 17:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section. The paragraph didn't even describe the results of the study, which would be essential to call it hyperbolic discounting. But even the setup described wouldn't produce results which would reveal preference profiles across time. The study just dealt with discounting in general it seems. In any case, even if the study was relevant, it was so tangential it shouldn't have been in the lead section in the first place. MarginalCost (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pigeon studies 

message: What does discount rate even mean in the context of hyperbolic discounting?  According to the first source cited in the article, in the conventional discounted utility model, the discount factor is 1/(1+ρ), where ρ is the discount rate. Hyperbolic discounting means the discount rate in this expression decreases with time. The sentence "The rate depends on a variety of factors, including the species being observed, age, experience, and the amount of time needed to consume the reward." however implies that there is such a thing as a single discount rate in hyperbolic discounting. Can someone clarify?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allion (talk • contribs) 21:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hyperbolic discounting does not have a constant discount rate but, as you correctly say, one that decreases with time. It is still true that the rate is affected by a variety of factors. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discount rate 

message: Unless parameters are used which show these curves crossing we don't see missing the main point here which is preference reversal. BO | Talk 01:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with current illustration

message: I create interactive learning materials for economics as part of my job, and two are about this article's topic. I won't add them as external links myself because of conflict of interest, but see  and . They are free works with a CC-BY licence. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interactive graphs 

message: How was the prior chosen?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surement (talk • contribs) 04:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prior distribution in Bayes example 

message: in the equation "(y/[(1 + r%)^n)" I don't understand the "/[" notation. Should it be "(y/[(1 + r%)^n])?"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakeadam (talk • contribs) 12:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equation clarification 

message: The "step-by-step example" subsection is not clear at all. I made some corrections to the formula, but it is still unclear how these calculations explain the time inconsistency. --Erel Segal (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Step-by-step example