= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Daniel_Burfoot comments on We're in danger. I must tell the others... - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (10)
A similar but different method is calculating your "perfect life probability" (from Howard).
Let A be a "perfect" life in terms of health and wealth. Say $2M per year, living to 120 years and being a perfectly healthy 120 year old when you instantly and painlessly die.
Let B be your current life.
Let C be instant, painless death right now.
What probability of A versus C makes you indifferent between that deal and B for sure? That is your "perfect life probability" or "PLP." This is a numerical answer to the question "How are you doing today?" For example, mine is 93% right now, as I would be indifferent between B for sure and a deal with a 93% chance of A and 7% chance of C.
Note that almost anything that happens to you on any particular day would not change your PLP that much. Specifically, adding a small risk to your life certainly won't make that much of a difference.
(I'm not sure how immortality or other extreme versions of "perfect health" would change this story.).
This is an interesting thought experiment. I submit that for many men, the probability is quite small, say on the order of 15% or 25%, whereas for most women it is 90-95%.
Edited: I originally wrote "for women it approaches unity".
What makes you suggest that?
All kinds of things - conspicuously, the far greater incarceration rate for men, and the far greater willingness of men to fight wars. Both crime and warfighting seem to involve assessments similar to the death vs. perfect life problem.