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.

Tyrrell_McAllister 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: Tyrrell_McAllister 23 January 2012 10:22:06PM *  0 points [-]

Which incidentally contradicts the original version of the paradox as stated here:

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam033/2002035199.pdf - page 11

That paper states that most people would pay MORE to remove the last bullet than the first, but the right number should be the SAME in both cases.

I don't think that there is any contradiction here. The scenario in Schick's book is different from the one in the OP. Schick is considering the case where the decision to pay ends up costing you the same amount whether or not you end up getting shot.

It's not clear to me that you were claiming otherwise, but I just wanted to emphasize that you weren't contradicting Schick in the sense that at least one of you had to be making a mistake.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit