4 ms·

>The most comfortable way to think about risk is to imagine a range of potential consequences that don’t seem like a big deal. Then you feel responsible, like y

>The most comfortable way to think about risk is to imagine a range of potential consequences that don’t seem like a big deal. Then you feel responsible, like you’re paying attention to risk, but in a way that lets you remain 100% confident and optimistic. The problem with low-probability tail risks is that they’re so rare you can get away with ignoring them 99% of the time. The other 1% of the time they change your life. The other side of the coin for his implicit argument that you should think about these tail end risks is that they're everywhere and in everything we all do commonly, even in fundamentally non-irresponsible activities. Ie: driving your car daily for errands around town will 99.9% of the time result in errands completed more quickly. 1 out of 1000 times, it could result in you killing yourself or someone else, even if you're always perfectly sober when you drive. Thus, while long tails risks shouldn't be forgotten, giving them too much weight as a basis for decision making could easily paralyze one into forfeiting all kinds of activity or choices. It would become a very constricting way to live a life, very quickly. Magnify this possibility accordingly for people who naturally suffer anxiety issues about life.

NewEntryHN 6y ago
Driving is not necessarily a good example for your point because if people actually focused on behaving remarkably behind the wheel (that would be the "constricting way to live a life"), road accidents would be much less frequent than they are today (which is already way less than 0.01% fortunately).
- shadowprofile77 6y ago
  In reply to both of the comments above, okay, perhaps my driving example wasn't the best. It was the first thing that came to mind, but I think my underlying point remains valid and applies to many other choices that one could commonly make in a life that isn't completely sheltered which nonetheless carry certain catastrophic long-tail risks. Life is by default risky, and all the more so if one lives it with some sense of adventure. this twirls all the way down into a whole series of sub-decisions that you could make inside a single larger decision. To worry too much about catastrophic long-tail risks throughout is a recipe for worrying far too much sometimes.
- FalconSensei 6y ago
  The problem is that you can decide to pay a lot of attention and drive safely, and still can get hit by a car. Or even just walking: you could get hit by a car, or get robbed
sanxchit 6y ago
While I agree with the point you made, I want to point out that the fatality rate for driving an automobile is much lower than 1 in a 1000. In the United States, the number of fatalities per vehicle-mile driven is approximately 1.5e-8[1]. On your average errand run, you have about a one in a hundred million chance of being killed/killing someone. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States#cite_note-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...
- throw_away 6y ago
  By that stat, you have a 1:66M chance per mile, so I think one in a hundred million is at least an order of magnitude too low. Nowhere close to 1:1000, though.

NewEntryHN 6y ago

Driving is not necessarily a good example for your point because if people actually focused on behaving remarkably behind the wheel (that would be the "constricting way to live a life"), road accidents would be much less frequent than they are today (which is already way less than 0.01% fortunately).

shadowprofile77 6y ago
In reply to both of the comments above, okay, perhaps my driving example wasn't the best. It was the first thing that came to mind, but I think my underlying point remains valid and applies to many other choices that one could commonly make in a life that isn't completely sheltered which nonetheless carry certain catastrophic long-tail risks. Life is by default risky, and all the more so if one lives it with some sense of adventure. this twirls all the way down into a whole series of sub-decisions that you could make inside a single larger decision. To worry too much about catastrophic long-tail risks throughout is a recipe for worrying far too much sometimes.
FalconSensei 6y ago
The problem is that you can decide to pay a lot of attention and drive safely, and still can get hit by a car. Or even just walking: you could get hit by a car, or get robbed

sanxchit 6y ago

While I agree with the point you made, I want to point out that the fatality rate for driving an automobile is much lower than 1 in a 1000. In the United States, the number of fatalities per vehicle-mile driven is approximately 1.5e-8[1]. On your average errand run, you have about a one in a hundred million chance of being killed/killing someone. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States#cite_note-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...

throw_away 6y ago
By that stat, you have a 1:66M chance per mile, so I think one in a hundred million is at least an order of magnitude too low. Nowhere close to 1:1000, though.