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.

Alicorn comments on Personal Benefits from Rationality - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Celer 12 May 2011 01:08AM

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

Comments (37)

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

Comment author: Alicorn 12 May 2011 07:11:56PM 3 points [-]

“Multiplication.” That is, the notion that you actually can compute expected value of real-world choices. Most blandly, I won an iPod in a raffle after a very rough computation that buying tickets was actually worthwhile compared to buying the item at retail, whereas I had previously been ‘irrationally’ opposed to anything resembling ‘gambling’.

This. One time my grad school department wanted to have the most donations to charity through the university's program, and so they arranged that a donation of any size (even $1) would constitute an entry into a department-organized raffle-y thing. I don't know where the prizes came from, but instead of dismissing the prospect out of hand I did a little arithmetic, got an estimate of how many people were entering from the school secretary, and determined that the cash prizes alone (let alone the gift basket and whatnot) constituted positive expected value. So I gave Planned Parenthood a dollar. (I lost, though.)

Comment author: Benquo 12 May 2011 07:31:22PM *  3 points [-]

Upvoted for distinguishing the anecdotal outcome (a loss) from the expected outcome (positive). In other words, anecdotes are only good data when everyone reports on their outcome.

BTW, as long as I could give to a charity I considered worthwhile, this would almost always be a slam dunk regardless of the expected gain from the raffle itself. For example, if I valued the good produced by giving $1 to the charity at $0.95, then $0.05 in expected winnings would be my break-even point, not $1.00

Comment author: endoself 13 May 2011 01:22:22AM 1 point [-]

if I valued the good produced by giving $1 to the charity at $0.95

Why would you? Charities differ in effectiveness by far more than 5%..

Comment author: Benquo 13 May 2011 12:10:03PM 0 points [-]

I meant to imply by "a charity I considered worthwhile" that you're near the utility break-even point already. Obviously if you think the charity only does a tiny amount of good, then you need a bigger expected win to make the raffle it worth playing.