4 ms·
For me: n <= ~10,000. This isn't a very enticing wager--it seems like I have a lot more to lose than to gain. If I set n at, say, $1M, then I might win $1M, wh
by brianr 19y ago
For me: n <= ~10,000.
This isn't a very enticing wager--it seems like I have a lot more to lose than to gain. If I set n at, say, $1M, then I might win $1M, which would be nice, or I could end up with basically nothing, which would be devastating. You might have a more interesting wager if $5000 were changed to something more substantial, like $250k.
- dfranke 19y ago> If I set n at, say, $1M, then I might win $1M I'm not sure whether you're understanding the wager correctly. If you win, you double your entire savings, not just gain $n.
- brianr 19y agoOh, that's true. Still, I think the wager is too scary for most people to accept for large values of n. Even if I set n=1M and have 10M when I'm 55, gaining the extra 10 million will make significantly less of a difference to my life than losing all but $5k will.
- staticshock 19y agothat's the point of the study
- deleted 19y ago[deleted]
- ed 19y agoDfranke, adhering to the constraints given shouldn't the correct answer should be a very large negative value for n? There's no upside to increasing the value of n; you're only putting yourself further at risk.
- dfranke 19y agoI'm asking the maximum value of n you could be offered such that you would still accept.
- daniel-cussen 19y agoYeah. Marginal utility has to be taken into account as a confounding factor.
- dfranke 19y agoIt's only a confounding factor to the extent that the shape of the curve varies across cultures. The only reason that comes to mind for any such variation would be the availability of charitable handouts or government welfare, and that's objective enough to easily factor out.