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.

orthonormal comments on Zeckhauser's roulette - Less Wrong Discussion

11 Post author: cousin_it 19 January 2012 07:22PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (45)

Comments (45)

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

Comment author: orthonormal 19 January 2012 10:41:05PM -1 points [-]

If dying were an infinite loss to you, you'd never drive an extra mile just to save money on buying something (let alone all the other small risks you take).

Comment author: jmmcd 19 January 2012 10:57:45PM 2 points [-]

I think this answers your comment:

The only time actually estimating cost comes into play is when the risk change is small enough to be close to the noise level. For example, deciding whether to pay more for a safer car, because the improved collision survival odds increase your life expectancy by 1 day (I made up the number, not sure what the real value is).

Comment author: shminux 19 January 2012 10:47:58PM *  0 points [-]

Not to me, to the author of the question. This is the contradiction I am pointing out: a failure to put a value on the 50% chance of death in Question C.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit