Minimax Regret is choose the option whose worst-case regret is least bad. It sits in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-COG-0478, within the Decision family. The core principle: choose the option whose worst-case regret is least bad. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
Scientific Definition
Choose the option whose worst-case regret is least bad.
Plain-English Definition
Choose the option whose worst-case regret is least bad.
Feynman Explanation
Sometimes the right call is the one you won't regret most.
Core Principle
Choose the option whose worst-case regret is least bad.
Mechanisms
Pending editorial review.
Choose the option whose worst-case regret is least bad.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Decisions where survival matters more than upside.
Inputs (Triggers)
Pending editorial review.
Outputs (Behaviors)
Pending editorial review.
Behavioral Signature
Sometimes the right call is the one you won't regret most.
Examples
- Risk-averse capital allocation.
- Decisions where survival matters more than upside.
Pending editorial review.
Original analysis from The Incentives Lab — how this element behaves inside real payoff structures.
Why this element matters to incentive design
The mistake with this element is treating it as irrationality. It is almost always a rational response to a payoff nobody wrote down. The mechanism underneath it is straightforward: choose the option whose worst-case regret is least bad. You can recognize it in the field by its signature: sometimes the right call is the one you won't regret most. Every element in the Cognition dimension changes the perceived payoff of an action before the action happens, which is exactly where incentive design has leverage.
How it gets exploited
Left undesigned, decisions where survival matters more than upside. It is amplified whenever decisions where survival matters more than upside. Inside organizations that shows up as decisions where survival matters more than upside. The pattern is the same one Goodhart's Law describes: the measurable proxy attracts the effort, and the purpose behind it quietly loses funding.
How the Lab designs around it
The redesign move is to use when ruin is on the table. Treat it as infrastructure. Once you can see it in your own system, most of the argument about culture resolves itself.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
- Use when ruin is on the table.
Measurement Approaches
Pending editorial review.
Evidence
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
The Perverse Incentive Lens™
How this behavior is exploited — and how to redesign around it.
- Use when ruin is on the table.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Interactive Mini Network
Click any neighbor to re-center the graph and follow the threads of connection.
Knowledge Graph Neighbors
Auto-linked to the rest of the Human Behavior Taxonomy by family, domain, dimension, and shared keywords.
We choose to minimize the regret we anticipate — not the expected value.
Choose the option you'll regret least at 80.
How will I feel about this in 10 minutes / 10 months / 10 years?
Inattention or forgetfulness caused by low attention, hyperfocus, or distraction.
Forgetting to compare an offer with the next-best alternative.
Outcomes that could have happened but did not.
Overthinking a situation so that decision-making stalls.
The first number on the table silently sets the range for every number after it.
Tversky & Kahneman's classic: identical outcomes flip from 'risk averse' to 'risk seeking' when framed as lives saved vs. lives lost.
Our perception is shaped by what we selectively pay attention to.
Favoring suggestions from automated systems over conflicting human judgment.
A color appears different depending on adjacent colors.
Where Minimax Regret is cited in the corpus
Essays, field guides, and diagnostics from The Incentives Lab that apply this element.
- EssayGoodhart's Law in the Real World
How measurable proxies capture judgment.
- EssayThe Perverse Incentives Hiding in Your KPIs
Cognitive shortcuts turned into scorecards.
- EssayAI Agents Inherit Your Incentives
How this element propagates into automated systems.
- CourseIncentives 101
The free ten-part primer on reading a payoff structure.
- ReferenceThe Periodic Table of Human Behavior
The full 1,267-element map this page belongs to.
Questions about Minimax Regret
- What is Minimax Regret?
- Minimax Regret is choose the option whose worst-case regret is least bad. It sits in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-COG-0478, within the Decision family. The core principle: choose the option whose worst-case regret is least bad. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
- What is an example of Minimax Regret?
- Decisions where survival matters more than upside. The Incentives Lab catalogs everyday, organizational, and historical instances of this element on its Human Behavior Taxonomy™ page (HBT-COG-0478).
- How is Minimax Regret exploited?
- Decisions where survival matters more than upside.
- How do you design around Minimax Regret?
- Use when ruin is on the table.
- Which behavioral dimension does Minimax Regret belong to?
- Minimax Regret is classified in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™, family "Decision", class "Mental Model". Its permanent identifier is HBT-COG-0478 and its evidence grade is B.