ChristianKl comments on Participation in the LW Community Associated with Less Bias - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (49)
Could someone explain the reasoning behind answer A being the correct choice in Question 4? My analysis was to assume that, since 30 migraines a year is still pretty terrible (for the same reason that the difference in utility between 0 and 1 migraines per year is larger than the difference between 10 and 11), I should treat the question as asking "Which option offers more migraines avoided per unit money?"
And when I did the numbers in my head I thought it was obvious that the answer should be B. What exactly am I missing that led the upper tiers of LWers to select option A?
The costs that get payed per prevented migraine in option B are irrelevant. The value of a prevented migraine isn't determined by the price that you pay to prevent a migraine.
The difference between option A and option B is that A prevents 20 additional migraines a cost of 250$. This means $12.50 per migraine. What kind of migraine are we talking about? A duration of 3 hours and involve intense pain, nausea, dizziness, and hyper-sensitivity to bright lights and loud noises.
$4.16 per hour of suffering migraine is lower than minimum wage. Normal minimum wage happens at a time that you can shedule in advance. You can't shedule your migraines in advance. They are likely to happen during the times where you have the most stress.
Being occupied with the migraine however isn't the only thing. Intensive pain also matters. You don't want people suffering intensive pain without good reason. Letting someone else suffer intensive pain is morally torture if you are a utilitarian.