Response to Comments on ‘Speaking of decisions: precise decision language’ [Howard (2004)]

These remarks respond to the comments offered by four colleagues on my paper ‘Speaking of Decisions: Precise Decision Language’. The response gives me the opportunity to clarify and expand on the paper and to note different views. In particular, I further discuss random variable, distinction, expected value, option, utility as a measure of happiness or satisfaction, subjective probability, the necessity of a value measure for computing the value of clairvoyance, decision analysis as a normative discipline, and the inability of the clairvoyant to provide probabilities. I conclude with a concept map for the language and a table showing where the terms are most useful in conversations with students and clients.