It seems to me that you can reverse the sense of the author&#x27;s conclusion by changing the initial conditions:<p>The change in utility by going from 2k up to 10k (~ +1.3) is significantly more than the change in utility by going from 18k down to 10k (~ -0.55).<p>In the simple model provided the change in utility caused by a change in wealth, positive or negative, depends on your starting wealth. This is different to the &quot;pop definition&quot; of loss aversion, which seems to be making a claim that the ratio of the change in utility between gains and losses is approximately independent of your starting point.<p>I should point out that I don&#x27;t know what the correct formulation of loss aversion is, it just seems to me that the argument presented is a bit weak.