= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
rhollerith_dot_com comments on Rationality case study: How to evaluate untested medical procedures? - 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 (19)
The risks people are willing to take to live a 'normal' life have a surprisingly bimodal distribution, with some accepting say 70% risk of death, whereas others only being willing to accept a minimal risk (I've been searching for references to studies showing this, but haven't been able to find any via Google). I think that lesswrongers are likely to fall into the second category, especially in a case like this where dialysis/transplantation may be tedious, but they don't exclude the possibility of undergoing the stem cell treatment in a few years time, when the risks have been ironed out.
Interesting. (Please do not continue to search for refs, but I'd be interested in any tidbits of how you came to the knowledge, e.g., "I read papers on medical procedures as part of my job".)
I am in the first category: I'd accept a 70% risk of death to have the kind of health I would have had if I'd never contracted Lyme disease.
I'm not sure how I came to know this - I think I first heard of it over 30 years ago. I've probably read a number of books about risk since then, some of which may have also mentioned the bimodal distribution, but I'm afraid I can't remember one.
Thanks.
I am now curious in what other traits or values correlate with someone's place in this bimodal distribution.
I still haven't been able to find any of the early research which I remember, but searching for "standard gamble" on google brings up lots of related results