Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Let's say that you were to wager me that you could toss a coin and get heads 5 times in a row. If you win, you get $100. If I win, I get $10. Simple math tells me that the odds of 5 consecutive head tosses are one in 32, which means the odds are strongly in my favor. I will make the bet, even knowing that there's a chance I lose I will lose much more than I stand to gain simply because the odds favor my outcome more than yours even to the point of superseding the factor of 10 difference between risk/reward. There may be some outside factor I cannot perceive, but based on all the information I have, I'm making the prudent and logically defensible choice.
|
In your example, the fair bet for me is $3.125 to win $100. I would not $10 to win $100 when the odds are 1 in 32 against me winning. However, people make those bets all day and night long, knowing the "facts", knowing the odds - why? Your position on this subject has no reasonable explanation for Las Vegas. Mine does - emotion. Your position has no reasonable explanation for financial and commodity markets. Mine does - emotion. Your position has no reasonable explanation for profits and losses in the insurance industry. Mine does - emotion. Your position has no explanation for why people like me don't care about the 47 million without health insurance. Mine does, emotion (my emotional response to the statistic is to explain it away, i.e. things like 18 million of them could buy health insurance if they chose to, while advocates don't make the emotional connection of why the statistic should matter to people like me. So, again I give you a practical application of what is at issue regarding the way people form opinions and take certain actions on issues. It all about emotion. Come on, say it with me - e m o t i o n.
It has been fun.
