DanielLC comments on Evaluability (And Cheap Holiday Shopping) - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 28 November 2007 12:37AM

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

Comments (43)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: Alejandro 28 November 2007 11:34:42AM 12 points [-]

"Naturally, those so-called "lotteries" were a failure. They had no moral force whatsoever; they appealed not to all a man's faculties, but only to his hopefulness. Public indifference soon meant that the merchants who had founded these venal lotteries began to lose money. Someone tried something new: including among the list of lucky numbers a few unlucky draws. This innovation meant that those who bought those numbered rectangles now had a twofold chance: they might win a sum of money or they might be required to pay a fine--sometimes a considerable one. As one might expect, that small risk (for every thirty "good" numbers there was one ill-omened one) piqued the public's interest. Babylonians flocked to buy tickets."

-Jorge Luis Borges, The Lottery in Babylon.

Long ago I was discussing this passage with a friend trained in economics (I am not). He insisted that is was silly and that people would never prefer deliberately the option with added penalties for losing. Glad to see he was wrong!

Comment author: DanielLC 09 November 2011 04:36:17AM 9 points [-]

Why would that make you glad? You found out your prediction was correct, which is good, but you also found out people are idiots, which is very bad.

Comment author: blashimov 28 October 2012 09:47:23PM 2 points [-]

I know I might feel glad because I feel like I have a lot more control over whether I am right or wrong than the relative idiocy of the average person. On the other hand, being a person, I'd probably just be glad either way. The upside of being cynical.