Day 94
There is a sense in which every single action we take is a gamble based on what we like to think of as rational risk assesments. Doing absolutely nothing causes starvation and death, so we must do something. But eating may cause food poisoning. Walking might cause a fall and broken bones. Driving could cause all kinds of horrors. Going into a building risks death by earthquake.
And so on ad infinitum. Everything is a risk. Some risks are absurdly small, and some large. Heck, even standing in an empty, open field on a beautiful day risks being struck by a meteor.
Sometimes just when things look fine, you get hit in the face by incredibly unlucky odds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4pWswDOJTk&feature=related
And how do we determine what risks are worth taking? The variables are infinite, but basically we decide in any given situation of choice whatever alternative maximizes benefit and minimizes risk. Like playing the market, higher risk often makes for higher potential benefits, as well as higher potential losses. In the end, it may simply be a matter of taste.
Observe this fellow, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-94i8YEeiIM
Though I'm not sure what benefit he stood to gain from that crazy stunt.
My thought is this: the right risks in life are those that fit into a well accepted norm, while the wrong ones fit into what we call psychological problems (being abnormal). What do we call a person who is irrationally cautious of something to the point of fearing it? A phobic. And on the other side of the spectrum, what do we call someone who irrationally takes risks to the point of disregard? A gambler.
So the gambler is simply an irrational risk taker, seeking benefits that do not justify the drawbacks. And the phobic is an irrational risk taker, who fears drawbacks that are outweighed by the benefits.
A fellow philosophy major and I got into a huge argument today. His position was that no matter how high the potential drawback, any risk can conceivably be made worth it by the reward. We pondered various hypothetical risks and rewards:
Would you take a 35/36 chance of getting a billion dollars, in which there is a 1/36 chance you will be killed instead? How about one in a hundred? One in ten?
How about a 50/50 chance (say, a coin flip). I'm sure wouldn't take that for any sum of money, but could some other potential benefit be so high that one might even be compelled to risk death at 50/50? What if the benefit were omnipotence? How about immortality? How about the chance to save a million lives?
Or, as my friend asked, "How about ten thousand years of absolute hedonistic pleasure and ecstacy?" Hoo boy, that is a thinker...
Fun questions, I find.
But let us not be too hard on those who choose to stray from the beaten path. Phobics have it hard enough, we don't need to make fun. As for example with this lady, who claims to have an extreme fear of pickles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta-FGE7QELQ
I hope you watched. I can't help but wonder what Freud would say. Well, I know exactly what Freud would say, actually, it's a no-brainer (so to speak).
And so on ad infinitum. Everything is a risk. Some risks are absurdly small, and some large. Heck, even standing in an empty, open field on a beautiful day risks being struck by a meteor.
Sometimes just when things look fine, you get hit in the face by incredibly unlucky odds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4pWswDOJTk&feature=related
And how do we determine what risks are worth taking? The variables are infinite, but basically we decide in any given situation of choice whatever alternative maximizes benefit and minimizes risk. Like playing the market, higher risk often makes for higher potential benefits, as well as higher potential losses. In the end, it may simply be a matter of taste.
Observe this fellow, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-94i8YEeiIM
Though I'm not sure what benefit he stood to gain from that crazy stunt.
My thought is this: the right risks in life are those that fit into a well accepted norm, while the wrong ones fit into what we call psychological problems (being abnormal). What do we call a person who is irrationally cautious of something to the point of fearing it? A phobic. And on the other side of the spectrum, what do we call someone who irrationally takes risks to the point of disregard? A gambler.
So the gambler is simply an irrational risk taker, seeking benefits that do not justify the drawbacks. And the phobic is an irrational risk taker, who fears drawbacks that are outweighed by the benefits.
A fellow philosophy major and I got into a huge argument today. His position was that no matter how high the potential drawback, any risk can conceivably be made worth it by the reward. We pondered various hypothetical risks and rewards:
Would you take a 35/36 chance of getting a billion dollars, in which there is a 1/36 chance you will be killed instead? How about one in a hundred? One in ten?
How about a 50/50 chance (say, a coin flip). I'm sure wouldn't take that for any sum of money, but could some other potential benefit be so high that one might even be compelled to risk death at 50/50? What if the benefit were omnipotence? How about immortality? How about the chance to save a million lives?
Or, as my friend asked, "How about ten thousand years of absolute hedonistic pleasure and ecstacy?" Hoo boy, that is a thinker...
Fun questions, I find.
But let us not be too hard on those who choose to stray from the beaten path. Phobics have it hard enough, we don't need to make fun. As for example with this lady, who claims to have an extreme fear of pickles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta-FGE7QELQ
I hope you watched. I can't help but wonder what Freud would say. Well, I know exactly what Freud would say, actually, it's a no-brainer (so to speak).
Comments