Comments on: Risk is Physical

By: Fitness and Risk — Ashwin Upadhyaya's Blog

Fitness and Risk — Ashwin Upadhyaya's Blog — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:37:45 +0000

[...] Do read this: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/risk-is-physica.html [...]

By: Alan Coates

Alan Coates — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:10:20 +0000

Where shall I find the meaning of:-

1. Ordinary Risk

2. Residual risk

By: Taggert Brooks

Taggert Brooks — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:18:35 +0000

I think the literature finds the source of this is in part testosterone. For example Chen, Y. N., Katuscak, P., & Ozdenoren, E. (2005). Why Can’t a Woman Bid More Like a Man? : SSRN. find women bid more like men when they are in the part of their menstrual cycle where they have the most testosterone.

So the causality might be wrong, simply exercising more will not make one more risky, as exercise actually suppresses testosterone. I’m not sure if there is a training adaptation to that effect over time, if there were then your concerns might be warranted.

But many risky behaviors and responses to visual stimuli appear to be linked in part to testosterone. Van Den Bergh, B., & Dewitte, S. (2006). Digit Ratio (2D: 4D) Moderates the Impact of Sexual Cues on Men’s Decisions in Ultimatum Games. Proceedings- Royal Society of London. Biological sciences, 273(1597), 2091-2095.

By: Gordon Rae

Gordon Rae — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:09:33 +0000

Risk is about decision making under conditions of uncertainty. It’s about what people do when they know they can’t control the outcome.
For risk to be present, there has to be a non zero probability of both loss and gain. Exposing oneseslf to danger when there’s no increased probability of gain is recklessness (literally acting without reckoning).

I’m not sure that what you call ‘ordinary risk’ is risk at all. Cowering under a table could be a high risk strategy for a fugitive in a house that’s about to be searched by sniffer dogs. Swaggering could be risk averse if you’re a gay cowboy in a bar full of rednecks.

My interpretation of the paper is that physical prowess might be a source of bias. Stronger people may overestimate their ability to secure an outcome, and weaker people underestimate theirs, regardless of probability.

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:59:25 +0000

Andy and Floccina, yes the effect may cue on relative strength, in which case the question is: who should we want to be the strongest, so they will take the most risks?

Michael, good observation.

By: Floccina

Floccina — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:18:15 +0000

I wonder if some of the effect is relative? Does a person take more risk if he is stronger and healthier than those around him.

By: Hopefully Anonymous

Hopefully Anonymous — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:11:52 +0000

If we could get more people to take more of certain kinds of risks, then yes, it would be a good thing for you and me, Robin.

By: michael vassar

michael vassar — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:53:22 +0000

People exercised much more in the 18th century when Adam Smith pointed out that while insurance was a good idea the market for it would always be small because most people have an irrational preference for risk.

By: sonic

sonic — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:05:50 +0000

“Anyone have any suggestions for a way of evaluating when to take risk and when not to?”
Take the risk when you can recover from the loss, but the expected outcome yields reward.
When I’ve been in my best physical shape I have been more willing to take risks than when I am feeling ill.
Is that true for you as well?
I don’t think risk taking leads to economic success as a rule. In fact, if you know of any financial institutions that didn’t take the risk on sub-prime loans, I’d like a listing for my current investment.

By: Aron

Aron — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:37:40 +0000

I suppose the theory that risky-behavior is beneficial comes from the idea that the average payoff for risk is higher than the average payoff for caution because death is a lower bound, and the upper bound is nearly limitless?

e.g., the failed man mates with 0 while the succesful mates with dozens and the cautious mates with 1? Or the failed man is bankrupt, while the succesful has billions and the cautious man has 6 figures?

I’ve always figured the female genetic motivation to pick risky men came from this math, and their ability to switch horses if required (upon death in war for instance).

At any rate I suspect there is a tradeoff equilibrium on the relative proportion of risk-taking behavior in a population mix, and its benefits to society decline past a certain optimal threshold. Particularly since some of these benefits are really just benefits at the expense of others in the population.