Many reasons - mostly that it makes you incorrectly discount the negatives, incorrectly assert some possibility, neglect some second or third order consequences etc.
Check out what I think is called the depression correctness hypothesis (at least IIRC): clinically depressed people cast more accurate judgements and evaluations.
I want to use the full power of that by taking decision that have the potential to increase my future utility (or the sum of its present value) in the most clear minded way possible, so with as little warm fuzzy feelings as possible
But even if you are a unique human whose utility is entirely unrelated to the sum of warm fuzzy feelings they feel, arbitrarily avoiding stuff which makes you happy is an irrational cognitive bias which will often if not even usually (since warm fuzzy feelings evolved from preference for certain types of collaboration improving survival odds) lead to worse material outcomes.
The Depression Correctness Hypothesis experiments, incidentally, said nothing about depressed people's ability to achieve better outcomes; they simply concluded that in experiments where humans were asked to estimate their level of control over the outcome, depressed people were more likely to correctly reason they didn't have [much] control. cf predictions for future utility in studies of cooperative behaviour, reciprocal altruism etc...
> arbitrarily avoiding stuff which makes you happy is an irrational cognitive bias
I do not generally avoid that - only when it comes to serious decisions. For a pandemic not seen for the last 100 years, I think this precaution is warranted.
Last time I did was when I was receiving conflicting signals - LW was strongly pro crypto, HN strongly against. HN generated warm fuzzy feelings (if crypto succeed it's extreme selfishness, they can't be right because as a community we find it wrong, deflation is good and more generous to newcomers, etc). I waited a bit too long to my taste to get in. A lot of LW people just didn't. It was quite a fiasco - the calculations clearly made sense, but a lot of people didn't act on the advice they were freely given. The reason is still unclear. Personally, I think it's due to these warm fuzzy feelings - or the lack of thereof.
I vowed "never again!", and now I apply a discount factor to questions that appeal to sentiments.
> in experiments where humans were asked to estimate their level of control over the outcome, depressed people were more likely to correctly reason they didn't have [much] control
Good enough for me! In the case of covid, we have little control - if only about the vaccine formula and access. A homemade vaccine allows me more freedom.
I see that as buying an option for a deadly 2nd wave driven by a mutant selected by the evolutionary pressure of everyone being vaccinated against the same antigens.
$1k isn't much for such a deadly scenario: I estimate the odds at 1%, and the lifetime cost at 1M (average cost of a human life), which means the homemade vaccine option is interesting up to $10k.
If you are faced with a decision where one option gives you warm fuzzy feelings it doesn't mean that the appealing option is any more likely to be incorrect, just that you need to be more careful when deciding. Preferring the less enjoyable option is just as irrational as preferring the more enjoyable option. In fact, all things being equal, you should choose the enjoyable one because at least then you get some enjoyment from it
Check out what I think is called the depression correctness hypothesis (at least IIRC): clinically depressed people cast more accurate judgements and evaluations.
I want to use the full power of that by taking decision that have the potential to increase my future utility (or the sum of its present value) in the most clear minded way possible, so with as little warm fuzzy feelings as possible