tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5881341662272291564.post5113900874522953909..comments2010-05-18T12:56:37.780-07:00Comments on Meditations: Risktombeheanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13770869974591689960noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5881341662272291564.post-79848604918441110112010-05-04T06:42:00.166-07:002010-05-04T06:42:00.166-07:00Thanks for the kind words. Comments like these are...Thanks for the kind words. Comments like these are really inspiring, actually :)tombeheanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13770869974591689960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5881341662272291564.post-13198633187025306872010-04-30T07:56:11.021-07:002010-04-30T07:56:11.021-07:00Your maths is fine. In fact, it's very easy to...Your maths is fine. In fact, it's very easy to generalise your "risk matrix" to lotteries with multiple outcomes, rather than just two. You can also be a little more delicate than just "positive is good, negative is bad," too - with the way your risk matrix is set up, it's the case that *higher* is good and lower is bad. This allows you to compare different actions - do I cross road A or road B to get to the shop, perhaps. Both might give negative scores (dying is bad), but you still need to cross one of them or you'll starve..<br /><br />More on the mathematical side of things here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_utility_hypothesis Warning: rather technical, but the St. Petersburg paradox is fun. Of course, as you go on to say in the post, all of this theory assumes *rational* behaviour in making choices, which you don't always get.. <br /><br />(You write science very well indeed, btw. Your style is most compelling.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com