3 ms·

I don't think your analogies are that good. Do you have a fire detector? If yes, are you expecting your house to burn down? You have to weigh the cost and the

• YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
  Let's talk about the risks then. The fire detector is not a good example because where I live, they're mandatory (and completely useless- they go off when I boil spaghetti). Let's instead look at the risks of boarding a plane. There's a very small chance that when you board a flight, instead of a plane that will fly you to your destination safe and sound, you're boarding a Flying Death Trap that will crash and burn, taking everybody onboard it to their deaths. The chances of boarding an FDT is very small, infinitisemal. The cost however may as well be infinite- if you are killed, it's game over, no more rewards, no way to recoup the cost. What is the rational behaviour then? To not board your flight, because if you do board an FDT you will certainly die and pay an infinite cost? Most people -if they consider the question at all- seem to think that if the chance of paying X cost is really small, it doesn't matter how large X is. So people keep boarding their flights, not knowing until the last moment whether they're on a plane or an FDT. Some do indeed board FDTs and die in aviation accidents- rarely, but they do. The article however says that they shouldn't. Since there is maximal uncertainty at the point where a flight is boarded (you can't know whether it's a plane or an FDT until the very last moment) you shouldn't be boarding. You shouldn't fly. At all. Because there's a tiny chance you might die. Is that a better analogy?