← Back to context

Comment by kev6168

10 years ago

The parachute analogy is worth exploring.

Let's say in a life time, the accident rates due to packing a parachute quickly is 1/10000, and the fatal rate of the slow packing group is 1/1000000. Even though the fast group faces bigger danger than the people in the slow group (or people sitting at home), but other than the few who have the bad luck, the rest of them will practice way more than the other group, jump more times, go to more places, have bigger opportunities to become a world champion of parachute packing or whatever parachuting sports.

Sure, a few will be forgotten by the world.

The victors we see in the world are probably the people who are still alive in the fast group, and have produced lots of results because of their speed and being still alive. Someone in that group will pay a huge price, but it's not necessary you or any particular one.

9 comments

kev6168

Reply
bunderbunder  10 years ago

You're attacking this analogy with made-up numbers and wild logical leaps. What is the real risk increment to packing a chute hastily, and does the real number help or hurt your position? Now make the stakes really high. Also consider the possibility that your choices have externalities, and others around you may not want to share their jumps with someone they perceive to be that reckless idiot who's going to get himself killed.

You didn't give specific numbers on how often someone can jump, but consider the realistic bounds on how much more often a person who packs hastily can skydive. How often is this person jumping? Are we in a scenario where the amount of time it takes to pack a parachute is really the limiting factor, to the point where the hasty packers can jump "way more?" Seems like what that would mean in concrete terms is that as soon as you hit the ground you're going to hit the john, re-pack your chute, and immediately be back in the plane. Is that a realistic scenario?

  • logicallee  10 years ago

    I found your response to the guy a bit hostile, he's still using a hypothetical analogy too.

    • bunderbunder  10 years ago

      Hostile to the idea, not the person. With some reason - there are a lot of pernicious myths that survive purely on the false mimesis you can generate by using made-up numbers. See: Politics.

      3 replies →

onion2k  10 years ago

To be honest, if packing a parachute takes an hour longer and increases the chance of living by 100* I'd say that's worthwhile. But then, I also wouldn't call 1/10000 an especially high risk. We face those sorts of odds just driving a car and they don't put many of us off[1].

If the probability of death from packing a parachute quickly were 1/100 then I think your argument would break down somewhat. Like I said, you should spend the appropriate time on something depending on the costs and risks associated with it. "Do everything fast" is wrong, but so is "Do everything slow".

[1] In 2003 the annual risk of being killed as a car user were 1/15261. http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Risk/trasnsport...