byrnema comments on Bayesians vs. Barbarians - Less Wrong

51 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 April 2009 11:45PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (270)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: orthonormal 21 August 2011 02:05:41PM 1 point [-]

Correction- it's for a pilot's entire quota of missions, not just one:

Decades before Tooby and Cosmides spelled out this logic, the psychologist Anatol Rapoport illustrated it with a paradox from World War II. (He believed the scenario was true but was unable to verify it.) At a bomber base in the Pacific, a flier had only a twenty-five percent chance of surviving his quota of missions. Someone calculated that if the fliers carried twice as many bombs, a mission could be carried out with half as many flights. But the only way to increase the payload was to reduce the fuel, which meant that the planes would have to fly on one-way missions. If the fliers would be willing to draw lots and take a one-in-two chance of flying off to a certain death instead of hanging on to their three-in-four chance of flying off to an unpredictable death, they would double their chance of survival; only half of them would die instead of three-quarters. Needless to say, it was never implemented. Few of us would accept such an offer, though it is completely fair and would save many lives, including, possibly, our own. The paradox is an intriguing demonstration that our mind is equipped to volunteer for a risk of death in a coalition but only if we do not know when death will come.

Comment author: CronoDAS 21 August 2011 11:38:17PM *  5 points [-]

Yeah, if it's for an entire quota of missions, the math doesn't work out - each pilot normally would fly several missions, making the death rate per flight less than 50%, so it wouldn't be a good deal.