The key thing here is that one isn't thinking in ensembles, one is thinking in time, Bayesianly, even if the questioner explicitly spoof-posed the question by beginning with time steps and then claiming ensemble thinking should be how to interpret it.
6/6 cc: Ole Peters

Emanuel Derman hitting the nail on the head.
Exactly right!

-> Ergodicity economics.

“The judge cited Caroline Ellison’s testimony that Bankman-Fried was willing to take risks if the “expected value” calculation was in his favor, even if it meant risking extreme harm.”

-> Ergodicity economics, anyone?

word cloud of 500 abstracts of papers citing my group's work.

Unlike other sciences, such as physics and even ecology, we prefer to do trivial mathematics and not concern ourselves with realism.

Mas-Colell, Whinston, Green, p.620.
Standard undergraduate economics text.

The better VCs know when to absolutely not use expected-value thinking.

Let’s all say it together: volatility stabilizes markets.

Found this on the beach. No idea what it is. Was thinking to plant it and see what emerges. Wish me luck!

The only thing that grows on magic trees is money. Just remember that money is not terribly useful.

Pet peeve: use of the phrase 'past data,' as in 'these model forecasts rely on past data.'

On what other data would they rely? Future data?

'For this study we traveled to the future, collected some data, and brought them back to the present, for more accurate forecasts.'

Anger is...
- the desire to repay suffering.
- the foe of reason.
- temporary madness.

Seneca, On anger.

Another good one, by Gould, 1992.

human minds 'are not built (for whatever reason) to work by the rules of probability.'

The reason is that human minds working by the rules of the probability the statement refers to wouldn't survive for long.

'people do not appear to follow the calculus of chance'
(Kahneman and Tversky, 1973)

...and that's a good thing. (OP)

The calculus of chance referred to here applies to ergodic systems. Why people should follow this calculus remains a mystery to me.

I haven’t read much about behavioural economics, but every time I do, I notice that the most basic claims of the field are contested. Nothing is known.

“Base rate neglect” became the narrative du jour after it had been “base rate conservatism” — its opposite. Up is down now.

“Understand really well the simple things” is the best description of how I think one should do Science!!!