Neither the sun nor death can be looked at with a steady eye. La Rochefoucauld, 1613-1680. Our terror of death is one of our most reliable sources of bias. In the latest issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science
Basically, this insures you against longevity; that is, if you live long, it pays you, but if you die early, you get nothing. The idea is that many people have high expenses late in their lives and they may not have saved enough to carry them through an unusually extended life span.
In effect, insurance companies are betting against the prospects for enhanced longevity. The commentor on the site linked is a life extension enthusiast and predicts that this will turn out to be a poor business decision for the companies.
>Marc, I could not ask for a more vivid example of fear-of-death-related overconfidence and denial. Do tell us here when you do, or do not, win $2M.
*Marc bows and grins broadly*
PS As to the puzzle contest I mentioned it's on 5 levels. I'm close to cracking the lowest level now - watch the 'Media room' here:
Readers can verify for themselves by checking the stats (for numbers of users) in the forum that I was competing against at least 7 000 hard-core Mensa-ites. 1 race horse can beat 7 000 mules ;)
Eliezer -- I agree. When I said that it "means something" that this article has so many replies, I was referring to the fact that survival is a Really Big Deal for each and every one of us.
The fact that this particular article has so many replies probably means something -- regardless of whether one is overconfident, overly pessimistic, or something akin to possibly realistic, the subject of one's own mortality does seem to prompt a lot of attention.
Yes, if you had a dutch book case on longevity/non-longevity it would be rational to bet, but this would not be betting on longevity itself, you would be just taking advantage of an arbitrage. People with radically different beliefs rationally make the same bet in the dutch book case. After many such bets, all that the market would show was that the arbitrage had been resolved, it would not necessarily give you any useful information about the timing or likelyhood of a cure for old age.
Also I am not sure an objective probability really does exist for things like a cure for old age. The event is a once only event and it will either happen or not. I would rather say it is indeterminate. The process to solution can't be modelled, even with the best possible computer, all we can have is "intuition" which is a bit too close to astrology for me. Of course it depends on what you mean when you say that an event has a probability - to me this only makes any sense if it can be rationally calculated or modelled (not necessarily using today's technology). Take the example of the decay of a radioactive particle, we cannot predict the timing of this decay on an individual atomic level, it is indeterminate - it can't be calculated in other words.
>Marc, I do hope for mortality reduction, but on the basis of our track record and the relevant available consenses, it seems like wishful thinking to expect to succeed enough to avoid death.
I find this very very difficult to come to terms with Robin.
Let me put it this way: The Grim Reaper may be trying to get me, but the Grim Reaper has never yet encountered any entity as devious, tricky, unpredictable and ruthless as Geddes ;) And now...a demonstration. I ask blog readers to keep their eyes on news reports regarding a $US 2 million global treasure hunt currently in progress... 'Secrets of the Alchemist Dar'. I will solve the lower puzzle level first, beating out 'the standard conscenus' of tens of thousands of Mensa experts who have been working the puzzle so far. This will demonstrate the limits of consensus
As to the market that's just a very crude measure of the aggregated short-term volitions of your average Joes and Janes. It's ridiculous to evaluate 'the market' to some sort of mythical position above society which we 'consult' for wisdom.
Robin, whatever information prices of life insurance companies and companies with the relevant pension plans show is mixed in with a lot of other information (e.g. risks of inflation), and I doubt that you have found a way to separate information about medical advances in the late 2020s. I suspect you're relying on cheap talk from people who claim to understand markets. Without clear signs of how much money people staking on the rate of medical advances 20+ years from now, I think you have said little beyond the existence of academic opinions that largely support your position. And I think you overestimate the value of academic opinion a bit.
But it seems to me that taking seriously the result of examination of contradictions between consenses probably requires that one not accept consenses regarding "impossible possible worlds".
Robin: You said "For each of us with beliefs that differ substantially from academic or financial consensus, it would be interesting to post on how we come to terms with that."I'm curious. Why do academic and financial consensus have privileged status relative to other consensuses (such as the media consensus that you mention later)? More generally, I would be interested in putting a post about this topic, that of the determination of relevant authorities. I think that it is clearly the academic consensus within some academic disciplines that many other entire disciplines (sometimes all disciplines except for either one's own discipline or Physics) are worthless, which seems to make the concept of a unified academic consensus problematic. The market seems to also believe that huge amounts of money should be spent in order to carry out financial transactions when one side is definitely making a bad decision, and that smaller but still huge amounts should be spent paying mutual fund active managers and who definitely average worse than do index funds, and paying massive amounts to hedge fund managers who may also average worse performance than index funds. The market also apparently believes that the discounted value (despite its high price volatility) of future dividend flows from or rents on Earth's above ground gold (about $145,000 tons) are worth a total of 3.35 Trillion dollars, despite that value exceeding 2.5x the estimated cost of extracting an equal amount today. I am deeply underwhelmed by the prophetic power of financial markets, or even their ability to integrate all readily available information into prices (and am ready to defend my position with the De Long-Summers argument and with other arguments of my creation from Prospect Theory and from naive Game Theory).
ChrisA: Every proposition has a subjective probability. More clearly, it is rational to bet on any proposition for which one can build a dutch book for that proposition and it's negation. Life extension results are almost surely results of this type. In fact, I think that the construction of life extension Dutch Books is probably a large profit opportunity. I have been trying to convince Aubrey de Grey that the Methusaleh prize should build such books at Lloyds of London and invest its prize money in such a form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... says that none of the 100 rings have been claimed. Marc Geddes is not mentioned in the article.
Trends in Attitudes Toward Life, Death and Progress
That is no country for old men. The young In one another's arms, birds in the trees (out of a --Those
See the small item added to the post above.
Via the Instapundit blog http://www.instapundit.com I found this article about Longevity Insurance:
http://www.fightaging.org/a...
Basically, this insures you against longevity; that is, if you live long, it pays you, but if you die early, you get nothing. The idea is that many people have high expenses late in their lives and they may not have saved enough to carry them through an unusually extended life span.
In effect, insurance companies are betting against the prospects for enhanced longevity. The commentor on the site linked is a life extension enthusiast and predicts that this will turn out to be a poor business decision for the companies.
>Marc, I could not ask for a more vivid example of fear-of-death-related overconfidence and denial. Do tell us here when you do, or do not, win $2M.
*Marc bows and grins broadly*
PS As to the puzzle contest I mentioned it's on 5 levels. I'm close to cracking the lowest level now - watch the 'Media room' here:
http://www.alchemistdar.com...
Readers can verify for themselves by checking the stats (for numbers of users) in the forum that I was competing against at least 7 000 hard-core Mensa-ites. 1 race horse can beat 7 000 mules ;)
Eliezer -- I agree. When I said that it "means something" that this article has so many replies, I was referring to the fact that survival is a Really Big Deal for each and every one of us.
Anne, I wouldn't call that a bias, but a proper judgment of the value of information, which derives from what it is information *about*.
The fact that this particular article has so many replies probably means something -- regardless of whether one is overconfident, overly pessimistic, or something akin to possibly realistic, the subject of one's own mortality does seem to prompt a lot of attention.
Michael
Yes, if you had a dutch book case on longevity/non-longevity it would be rational to bet, but this would not be betting on longevity itself, you would be just taking advantage of an arbitrage. People with radically different beliefs rationally make the same bet in the dutch book case. After many such bets, all that the market would show was that the arbitrage had been resolved, it would not necessarily give you any useful information about the timing or likelyhood of a cure for old age.
Also I am not sure an objective probability really does exist for things like a cure for old age. The event is a once only event and it will either happen or not. I would rather say it is indeterminate. The process to solution can't be modelled, even with the best possible computer, all we can have is "intuition" which is a bit too close to astrology for me. Of course it depends on what you mean when you say that an event has a probability - to me this only makes any sense if it can be rationally calculated or modelled (not necessarily using today's technology). Take the example of the decay of a radioactive particle, we cannot predict the timing of this decay on an individual atomic level, it is indeterminate - it can't be calculated in other words.
Marc, I could not ask for a more vivid example of fear-of-death-related overconfidence and denial. Do tell us here when you do, or do not, win $2M.
>Marc, I do hope for mortality reduction, but on the basis of our track record and the relevant available consenses, it seems like wishful thinking to expect to succeed enough to avoid death.
I find this very very difficult to come to terms with Robin.
Let me put it this way: The Grim Reaper may be trying to get me, but the Grim Reaper has never yet encountered any entity as devious, tricky, unpredictable and ruthless as Geddes ;) And now...a demonstration. I ask blog readers to keep their eyes on news reports regarding a $US 2 million global treasure hunt currently in progress... 'Secrets of the Alchemist Dar'. I will solve the lower puzzle level first, beating out 'the standard conscenus' of tens of thousands of Mensa experts who have been working the puzzle so far. This will demonstrate the limits of consensus
As to the market that's just a very crude measure of the aggregated short-term volitions of your average Joes and Janes. It's ridiculous to evaluate 'the market' to some sort of mythical position above society which we 'consult' for wisdom.
Robin, whatever information prices of life insurance companies and companies with the relevant pension plans show is mixed in with a lot of other information (e.g. risks of inflation), and I doubt that you have found a way to separate information about medical advances in the late 2020s. I suspect you're relying on cheap talk from people who claim to understand markets. Without clear signs of how much money people staking on the rate of medical advances 20+ years from now, I think you have said little beyond the existence of academic opinions that largely support your position. And I think you overestimate the value of academic opinion a bit.
But it seems to me that taking seriously the result of examination of contradictions between consenses probably requires that one not accept consenses regarding "impossible possible worlds".
Michael, I didn't intend to privilege some consenses, and yes contradictions within or between consenses seem worth examining.
Robin: You said "For each of us with beliefs that differ substantially from academic or financial consensus, it would be interesting to post on how we come to terms with that."I'm curious. Why do academic and financial consensus have privileged status relative to other consensuses (such as the media consensus that you mention later)? More generally, I would be interested in putting a post about this topic, that of the determination of relevant authorities. I think that it is clearly the academic consensus within some academic disciplines that many other entire disciplines (sometimes all disciplines except for either one's own discipline or Physics) are worthless, which seems to make the concept of a unified academic consensus problematic. The market seems to also believe that huge amounts of money should be spent in order to carry out financial transactions when one side is definitely making a bad decision, and that smaller but still huge amounts should be spent paying mutual fund active managers and who definitely average worse than do index funds, and paying massive amounts to hedge fund managers who may also average worse performance than index funds. The market also apparently believes that the discounted value (despite its high price volatility) of future dividend flows from or rents on Earth's above ground gold (about $145,000 tons) are worth a total of 3.35 Trillion dollars, despite that value exceeding 2.5x the estimated cost of extracting an equal amount today. I am deeply underwhelmed by the prophetic power of financial markets, or even their ability to integrate all readily available information into prices (and am ready to defend my position with the De Long-Summers argument and with other arguments of my creation from Prospect Theory and from naive Game Theory).
ChrisA: Every proposition has a subjective probability. More clearly, it is rational to bet on any proposition for which one can build a dutch book for that proposition and it's negation. Life extension results are almost surely results of this type. In fact, I think that the construction of life extension Dutch Books is probably a large profit opportunity. I have been trying to convince Aubrey de Grey that the Methusaleh prize should build such books at Lloyds of London and invest its prize money in such a form.
Hal, I stand corrected.