Never. I don't like to play games such as this. The risk is not worth the reward at any odds.
So you're telling me you don't take actions involving monetary gain that have a non-zero chance of killing you?
I'm telling you that any time someone goes JT512 and twists a single point into the most extreme example then that person is behaving unreasonably.
Have I held a job? Yes. Would I put a gun to my head at ten billion to one to earn all the money in the world? No. Ten trillion to one? No. Ten whatever is next to one? No.
Could you provide some rationale? I mean, it's pretty ridiculous to claim that you don't take worse odds for far less than all the money in the world.
I'm not motivated like that? Life is more than just money and death? Shoot, I wasn't willing to take N/A's deal either.
Well, I guess I'm confused considering you even already said you have worked in the past. During the requirements of that job (such as showing up and the transportation involved in it), you certainly faced worse odds than, say, one in one trillion squared. Essentially, you could choose odds that would not be above your background levels of death. It is, however, just a more tangible risk that our brain can interpret more easily. Perhaps that is actually the problem.
Maybe so, but if I die on the subway on the way to work then that isn't considered stupid. Putting a gun to my head is, regardless of odds.
In reply to:
Moreover, if you had one billion dollars, it's not like you're going to suddenly become an investment banker that thinks of nothing but money and markets. You will, however be infinitely more free to do whatever your heart wants to do.
I disagree with the last statement. I think you're grossly overestimating predators. One doesn't have to be an investment banker to be less free. Don't get me wrong, if I won the lottery I'd be happier (for at least the perceived two years thereafter) than now, but I don't go out and buy lottery tickets even though the risk of dying is pretty small.
And to be more clear, I'm pretty happy now, so even if I did win the lottery, based on the research done on such subjects, I'd still be happy after the two year bliss receded. So maybe I'm not a good person for your test.
I would go 1/1000 on the million. 1/250 on the billion. Maaaaaayybe 1/100 on the billion but I think that would just be a spur of the moment decision.
Those who have said "never", much like Greg's refusal to sell me a toe, I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU.
Never didn't mean I don't have a price (everybody has a price for the million dollar man), it is that in a crowd I would, in all likelihood, never be the lowest bidder.
I would go 1/1000 on the million. 1/250 on the billion. Maaaaaayybe 1/100 on the billion but I think that would just be a spur of the moment decision.
Those who have said "never", much like Greg's refusal to sell me a toe, I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU.
Never didn't mean I don't have a price (everybody has a price for the million dollar man), it is that in a crowd I would, in all likelihood, never be the lowest bidder.
But thats not really the point of the discussion. What spike, and myself in the aforementioned toe acquisition project, are interested is what you would sell your soul for. Of course none of us believe in souls so this is basically the next best thing.
I would go 1/1000 on the million. 1/250 on the billion. Maaaaaayybe 1/100 on the billion but I think that would just be a spur of the moment decision.
Those who have said "never", much like Greg's refusal to sell me a toe, I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU.
Never didn't mean I don't have a price (everybody has a price for the million dollar man), it is that in a crowd I would, in all likelihood, never be the lowest bidder.
But thats not really the point of the discussion. What spike, and myself in the aforementioned toe acquisition project, are interested is what you would sell your soul for. Of course none of us believe in souls so this is basically the next best thing.
I sold my soul in college for a smoke, so I have a low threshold of spirituality.
I don't like bad bets, I would like at least 1,000,00:1 on a set for life number, but even then I would not likely do it. I've already chosen a happy life over a wealthy life, and I don't regret it.
I'd take the revolver, then point it at you. Then you can decide whether I pull the trigger.
The actual amount money is not important, because the "benefit" of the trick is the thrill of suspense, when the trigger is being pulled.
Anyway the idea is really stupid, and I every time I hear about this, I wonder what's missing in the guy's brain, before the game started up. And then I wonder about the guys who think that this is a riddle about human behaviour.
It is, however, just a more tangible risk that our brain can interpret more easily. Perhaps that is actually the problem.
No, it's different. Natural risks inherent to everyday life, even if one chooses "risky" hobbies/lifestyles, is different than a situation with defined odds and a binary outcome where you're choosing to gamble between money and death.
When you cross the street there is most definitely a well-defined (yet incalculable) probability that you will die. Moreover, it is also binary: You will either die or you will not die when you cross the street.
As I said above, it's just that the odds are 100% calculable (more tangible, as I said above).
I'd take the revolver, then point it at you. Then you can decide whether I pull the trigger.
Wut?
In reply to:
The actual amount money is not important, because the "benefit" of the trick is the thrill of suspense, when the trigger is being pulled.
I gotta call bullhonky on this. I think anyone would skip over this "benefit" in order to jump straight to the million/billion dollars.
In reply to:
Anyway the idea is really stupid, and I every time I hear about this, I wonder what's missing in the guy's brain, before the game started up.
You've heard about this before? As for the last bit of that sentence, I have no idea what you're talking about it.
In reply to:
And then I wonder about the guys who think that this is a riddle about human behaviour.
First, it's not a riddle. Second, it is about how humans think about probability in a situation where HUGELY favorable odds are challenged by a penalty that inhibits "favorable odds" from mattering--time. Without repeated trials, it becomes more of an emotional decision.
... ... Second, it is about how humans think about probability in a situation where HUGELY favorable odds are challenged by a penalty that inhibits "favorable odds" from mattering--time. Without repeated trials, it becomes more of an emotional decision.
... ... Second, it is about how humans think about probability in a situation where HUGELY favorable odds are challenged by a penalty that inhibits "favorable odds" from mattering--time. Without repeated trials, it becomes more of an emotional decision.
It is, however, just a more tangible risk that our brain can interpret more easily. Perhaps that is actually the problem.
No, it's different. Natural risks inherent to everyday life, even if one chooses "risky" hobbies/lifestyles, is different than a situation with defined odds and a binary outcome where you're choosing to gamble between money and death.
When you cross the street there is most definitely a well-defined (yet incalculable) probability that you will die. Moreover, it is also binary: You will either die or you will not die when you cross the street.
As I said above, it's just that the odds are 100% calculable (more tangible, as I said above).
It is, however, just a more tangible risk that our brain can interpret more easily. Perhaps that is actually the problem.
No, it's different. Natural risks inherent to everyday life, even if one chooses "risky" hobbies/lifestyles, is different than a situation with defined odds and a binary outcome where you're choosing to gamble between money and death.
When you cross the street there is most definitely a well-defined (yet incalculable) probability that you will die. Moreover, it is also binary: You will either die or you will not die when you cross the street.
As I said above, it's just that the odds are 100% calculable (more tangible, as I said above).
It is, however, just a more tangible risk that our brain can interpret more easily. Perhaps that is actually the problem.
No, it's different. Natural risks inherent to everyday life, even if one chooses "risky" hobbies/lifestyles, is different than a situation with defined odds and a binary outcome where you're choosing to gamble between money and death.
When you cross the street there is most definitely a well-defined (yet incalculable) probability that you will die. Moreover, it is also binary: You will either die or you will not die when you cross the street.
As I said above, it's just that the odds are 100% calculable (more tangible, as I said above).
Are you trolling or are you really that ignorant?
False dichotomy.
This is true. Spike could be both a troll and that ignorant.
I apologize, Spike, I should not have led you on like I did, and then just drop it.
I like "Maslow's hierarchy of needs", I think it works well to explain how people make complex choices in their life. One explanation is in Business Balls. This idea has been re-interpreted thousands of times. The names of the levels change frequently, and even the number of them. Some recent Internet pages show a "pyramid" graphic, which I haven't seen before -- but it doesn't matter, the basic idea seems to work well.
So your scenario asks us to choose between: - risking death, and - fabulous wealth.
But according to Maslow's concept, death is the lowest level of needs -- in fact it's even lower, because death eliminates forever the possibility of achieving any higher goal. Life is the absolute highest priority of needs.
On the other hand, wealth is pretty high-level need, and it can be deferred by the needs for health and nutrition.
In your scenario, you tried to establish a dollar level for the choice. A million dollars, or a billion. That's one hell of spread. And the reason you couldn't pin a "fair" value on the challenge was because there is no fair value when you compare the benefit to lower level of needs, further down in Maslow's hierarchy. It doesn't work.
Also there's the practical problem of committing that million, in the first place. To make the challenge realistic, you must first find somebody who has the million in place, in liquid assets if not cash, and is willing to give it away for this challenge.
But this is philanthropy: they will give to folks who do good work for social benefit. The Revolver challenge pays for risk of death.
Finally, risking my life is problematical in that some folks think that it can be tried, but I don't. Personally I have faced impending death a couple of times, so I know from experience that it's a route I would never choose. It was very scary, but I know that my only focus was to save myself -- there was no possible benefit.
In your scenario, you tried to establish a dollar level for the choice. A million dollars, or a billion. That's one hell of spread. And the reason you couldn't pin a "fair" value on the challenge was because there is no fair value when you compare the benefit to lower level of needs, further down in Maslow's hierarchy.
Couldn't pin a value on it? I don't follow. I was merely offering another option for others to choose from..
In reply to:
Also there's the practical problem of committing that million, in the first place. To make the challenge realistic, you must first find somebody who has the million in place, in liquid assets if not cash, and is willing to give it away for this challenge.
What?? The question assumes the reward is on hand and will be transferred immediately. I don't really get why this is an issue.
In reply to:
Finally, risking my life is problematical in that some folks think that it can be tried, but I don't.
You "don't think risking life can be tried" ?? I don't follow what you're trying to say at all.
In reply to:
Personally I have faced impending death a couple of times, so I know from experience that it's a route I would never choose.
One realization that should come about from the question I posed is that we all face death--just that there's a given probability associated with actually dying. When we get in our cars, there's a probability of death that we have to deal with, same with taking a FF-2 fall, same with falling on permadraws, same with buying Aliens, same with putting a gun to your head with only one bullet in it.
In reply to:
It was very scary, but I know that my only focus was to save myself -- there was no possible benefit.
I always assume that my post is so sparkling and delightful that everybody would automatically want to read it. And that my prose is so well-written and interesting that everybody would agree, too.
But it doesn't always work that way! Still, I do enjoy delivering my 2 ¢ .
... One realization that should come about from the question I posed is that we all face death-- ...
Let me speak personally again:
I'm 68 years old, and wife is even older: 71. We're both the oldest living members of our respective families. Part of our normal lifestyle includes the knowledge that we are approaching the end of our lives.
But we don't plan our death: Instead, we plan our life. That's a very different attitude.
Somebody once asked my wife, "So what's it like to be getting older?" "Getting older?" she said, "We're too busy living, to worry about getting older!"
You realize, I'm talking about choices, not about possibilities.
9 /
47%
