Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Micromort

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: Micromort

#41

Post by [deleted] »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #36
jlgreco wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be shocked to see any statistically significant [1] difference. The things about alcohol that kill you are cumulative. 3 drinks isn't going to kill your internal organs, not even 1 in a million times. [1] I would be shocked if, give two groups of a million, both groups had the exact same number of deaths in a predetermined time period. 1 death difference between two groups that large is pure background noise.

You're dodging the question. You can achieve statistical significance by using a large sample size, iff there is a real effect. If we had 10e20 people in each group and gave an extra 0.5 liters of alcohol to each one, would you be shocked that a millionth of them died?

[deleted]

Re: Micromort

#42

Post by jlgreco »

eli wrote: post #38
jlgreco wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean what sort of relationship between alcohol and death do I propose? One that isn't a neat mathematical line for sure , particularly since it seems possible that moderate amounts of alcohol are actually beneficial . If the relationship were linear, then you could spread that 500 milliliters out over 100 days and see the same effect, which is plainly ludicrous. The rate of alcohol consumption plays a large role,…

Is there some amount of cigarettes that is beneficial too? So long as the line is going up and to the right, it's specific shape only matters if you want to debate the micromort value, not whether the concept exists.

If you go up to the top of this thread, I think you will find that we are bickering about specific micromort values listed on the Wikipedia page.

Some of these things plausibly can be modeled as LNT. Radiation possibly can, perhaps airplane rides too. Some of them cannot be, like alcohol consumption.

Re: Micromort

#43

Post by Dylan16807 »

jlgreco wrote: post #39
Dylan16807 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're dodging the question. You can achieve statistical significance by using a large sample size, iff there is a real effect. If we had 10e20 people in each group and gave an extra 0.5 liters of alcohol to each one, would you be shocked that a millionth of them died?

I am not dodging the question; my answer is yes. Applying a LNT model to alcohol exposure is silly. Do you really think that a Mormon drinking 3 glasses of wine in his life has a one in a million chance of losing his liver?

That specific mechanism? Probably not. But I wasn't here to say the effects were linear. I was just pointing out that complaining about sample size in a theoretical experiment where you can multiply the size in your head is a nonsensical objection.

Re: Micromort

#44

Post by gbog »

eli wrote: post #21
gbog wrote: post #18

It should be noted that used in Thinking Fast and Slow context this micromort induce can be used to show how much we human have very hard time grasping low probability events. All the lottery and insurance business is just a scam against us taking advantage of this miss computation of micro risks.

I gladly pay my life insurance premium because I want to know my loved ones will be taken care of. It's not a scam. I fully intend to pay in more than I get out of it (I hope!!). Lottery isn't really a scam either if you derive pleasure simply from playing the game.

Yes but a fair insurance would be the exact price of the risk leveled among insured, plus a small processing fee. There should be not one penny left for luxurious offices or prestigious ads or art mecenat.

Lottery pleasure is empty. Play poker with friends, you may loose money but at least you get friends.

The problem pointed in Kahneman book is that we are irrational, and (AND) it's usually the less irrational among us who win.

Re: Micromort

#45

Post by jlgreco »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #43
jlgreco wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not dodging the question; my answer is yes. Applying a LNT model to alcohol exposure is silly. Do you really think that a Mormon drinking 3 glasses of wine in his life has a one in a million chance of losing his liver?

That specific mechanism? Probably not. But I wasn't here to say the effects were linear. I was just pointing out that complaining about sample size in a theoretical experiment where you can multiply the size in your head is a nonsensical objection.

Perhaps. I was merely trying to be precise with my answer so that I wouldn't say something silly (expecting the exact same number of deaths). I wasn't trying to be bitchy, though I fear it came off that way.

Re: Micromort

#46

Post by colanderman »

AlexMennen wrote: post #19

So is 1 mort a guaranteed death or a [edit:] 1 - 1/e chance of death?

I think you mean 1-1/e (~= 1 - (1-10^-6)^(10^6)). But yes, the idea that you can just divide a statistic sampled over thousands of events linearly to get a meaningful statistic for one occurrence of the event is ridiculous.

Re: Micromort

#47

Post by AlexMennen »

gibybo wrote: post #25
AlexMennen wrote: post #19

So is 1 mort a guaranteed death or a [edit:] 1 - 1/e chance of death?

Neither. 1/e would require that they all be independent random events which is not true in the general case (and mathematically 1/e would only be an approximation anyway). 1 would require that they be entirely dependent, which is also not true in the general case.

2 micromorts does not mean 2 separate risks, each of which has a 1 in 1 million chance of killing you. It means a single risk that has a 1 in 500 thousand chance of killing you. Similarly, it would be absurd to define 1 mort as the combination of 1 million separate risks, each of which has a 1 in 1 million chance of killing you. Whether 1 mort is guaranteed death or 1 - 1/e chance of death (my previous mention of it being 1/e was mistaken) is a property of how we define the unit to work, not a property of how correlated 1 million separate risks happen to be. Definitions that give answers other than 1 - 1/e or 1 don't make any sense.

> mathematically 1/e would only be an approximation anyway

If we're going with the definition that treats micromorts as independent, then it would make sense to define a mort as exactly a 1 - 1/e chance of death, and a micromort as a 1 - e^(-10^(-6)) chance of death, rather than a 10^-6 chance of death, but the difference is smaller than the degree of risk that we can measure or care about, so the difference is inconsequential, and it would still make sense to describe a micromort as a 10^-6 chance of death.

Re: Micromort

#48

Post by AlexMennen »

colanderman wrote: post #46
AlexMennen wrote: post #19

So is 1 mort a guaranteed death or a [edit:] 1 - 1/e chance of death?

I think you mean 1-1/e (~= 1 - (1-10^-6)^(10^6)). But yes, the idea that you can just divide a statistic sampled over thousands of events linearly to get a meaningful statistic for one occurrence of the event is ridiculous.

Yes, thank you.

Re: Micromort

#50

Post by nazgulnarsil »

whatshisface wrote: post #37
gbog wrote: post #18

It should be noted that used in Thinking Fast and Slow context this micromort induce can be used to show how much we human have very hard time grasping low probability events. All the lottery and insurance business is just a scam against us taking advantage of this miss computation of micro risks.

Insurance is not intended to pay out more money than you put in, it is intended to prevent gambler's ruin. Some extra money when you are in trouble is worth more than the money itself, it is also worth the trouble it gets you out of.

Or put another way: In your life you are optimizing over more than just money. Insurance is a way to reduce variance, and thus stress, and is therefore worth a nominal fee.
Post reply on HN