You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

TheOtherDave comments on $100 for the best article on efficient charity -- deadline Wednesday 1st December - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: FormallyknownasRoko 24 November 2010 10:31PM

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

Comments (57)

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

Comment author: TheOtherDave 27 November 2010 03:42:59PM 0 points [-]

(blink)

Two investment strategies, S1 & S2. They have the same average expected ROI, but S1 involves investing all my money in a single highly speculative company with a wider expected variance... my investment might go up or down by an order of magnitude. So, S1 suffers from a single point of failure relative to S2.

You're saying that I could just as readily express this by saying "S1 involves diminishing marginal utility of wealth relative to S2"... yes?

Huh. I conclude that I haven't been understanding this conversation from the git-go. In my defense, I did describe myself as finance-phobic to begin with.

Comment author: Sniffnoy 27 November 2010 11:33:23PM 1 point [-]

No - what's under question is the scaling behavior of your own utility function wrt money; if you exhibit diminishing marginal utility of wealth, that means you want to avoid S1.