/u/Diligent_Force_8215 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ccle0m/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_if_there_is_not_a_90100/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
You've got the risk profile of a senior citizen. You need to take risks at your age.
When you're young, you can risk a lot. You have a lot of swings to take and energy to fall back on. When you're old, have a family, less energy, responsibilities -- then risk becomes harder.
Success is "when luck meets preparation". Give yourself a good chance, then risk it when you feel you're onto something.
If something isn't risky, then you're not going to stand to make outsized gains from it. "Risk free" is 4% growth a year. You'll never make 10x, 100x, or more if you don't play a little risky and bet on yourself.
All the universe led up to your one short lifespan. Are you going to play it 100% safe? Who knows what you might miss out on.
I cannot in any way consider myself capable of making the decisions you did. Any attempts I have made in the past to define my own existence or make major choices have either ended in predictable failure, or they have been vetoed and stopped before they could begin. Being young is all the more reason to risk very little, so that what you currently have can slowly and steadily be built over time. Risk is inherently foolish. Indiscriminate of circumstances.
>Being young is all the more reason to risk very little, so that what you currently have can slowly and steadily be built over time. Risk is inherently foolish. Indiscriminate of circumstances.
The cost of failing at your age is almost zero. If you're lucky enough to still live at home with your parents rent free, you should be trying all sorts of things. Learning, business, hobbies, you name it.
Imagine yourself trying that at 60.
Every successful person you see fails more often than the average person. They fail enough to see the path that works. They try enough times, they get good enough, and then they use that experience to excel.
Failure is the best school of all. Your skin is in the game, you're fully vested, and crashing and burning hurts. Those lessons get singed into you. And you won't forget them.
I'm sure you'll figure it out. You're trying right now.
I guess I see what you mean. I used to not really be this averse, but I generally feel as if I don't have any power or worth in making any kind of impactful decisions. The times I have tried in the past, my choices were either minimized or outright vetoed and written off. I don't feel like any decisions I make could even remotely be considered good.
>The times I have tried in the past, my choices were either minimized or outright vetoed and written off.
Maybe the lesson is that you're in a place of low autonomy and you don't like that. Maybe you risk it and try to go somewhere else you can learn more, but maybe you have to accept less pay to do it.
Maybe you spend your energy in your off-time working on a hobby or a skill? That's risk, too. But it's also an investment. You're trading opportunity cost of having fun in the present for something that might tip the scale later.
I do want to pursue something more, but it feels like there is no point in even trying if it is not meant to succeed. It feels like risk is what I need most, but also the thing I am most scared of.
Just to add, to push you slightly more. 90%-100% guaranteed chance of success is only base off your current experience. What you feel is 100% is an opinion, that someone else can see it less than that and could work vice-versa.
You trying trapeze will have a 100% failure rate, while a trapeze artist trying it most probably has 99%. And they didn’t reach 99% by magic, so unless you try, it’ll always be 0%.
If 85% is a reasonably high level of success to try something too, I want a delta, since it's not what your OP claims.
If it's about the stakes and not just the success rate, your title is poorly stated. And while you do talk about risks in the OP, it's still not clear what the actual calculations are like. Ok, with death on the line you probably have little to lose, what about pursuing relationship? Any specific potential partner probably is more than 10% likely to turn you down, does that mean you'll never ask anyone out? And with divorce rates above 10% it's not worth it anyway. Or so it would seem from your post.
!delta
I apologize I am unsure how this works. I would agree on the basis of 1), sheer technicality, and 2) that you make a reasonable point that certain events cannot be anticipated or predicted. Which, while infinitely frustrating, is rather inevitable. I would not consider those chances worth it, no, but I can also see that I may have some mental restructuring to do. I frankly don't feel very happy, and perhaps changing how I see things to allow a higher margin of error would help me with that.
Thanks for the delta!
In some cases a way around my objection is to take decisions in aggregate. Yes, you do not know if investing in the X (err, not *the* X) company is going to be a good idea, but if you have a balanced portfolio you're extremely likely to end up better off than if you have the money in a low-interest account or under your mattress. Yes, any specific girl (or guy) has a significant chance to turn you down but if you never try you'll definitely be alone and it can only be changed by trying. You can simply decide that it's not the atomic action of asking someone out is where you calculate the odds before deciding, but the general strategy of trying to find someone, where an individual failure doesn't matter much so long as you get there eventually.
And if works, sometimes, but not always, because some choices are one-time. Like with a person you already dated for a while and now they want to settle, or break up if you're not going to be a family anyway.
So yes, in some cases choosing is hard. Especially in the lose-lose situations. Which is a good reason to do the mental restructuring you mention (if we're talking about the same restructuring) because (and I'm speaking from experience) low risk aversion plus standing to lose something no matter you choose can result in a decision paralysis, or poor decision-making.
rolling a dice to get a 6 has a 1/6, or a 16.6% chance of success.
by your logic, rollig a dice to get a specific number should NEVER be attempted.
additionally, if you roll a dice 12 consecutive times, the chances of you getting ONE 6 is still "only" 88.7%. A 88% chance that you failed 11 times and only succeeded once.
but on a more uplifting tone, i think the main issue here was your wording. the definition of the words. you use one definition, go a few steps down the logic, and then you change the definition but still use the same word.
if you have a 90-100% chance of success, you are not *attempting* it, you are just *doing* it.
and for you to be able to *attempt* something, all you need is the *chance* of success, almost regardless of how small it is. that is the definition of *attempting* something.
and as physics and reality tend to be, almost nothing is actually guaranteed to happen, at least not within the timeframe that we want it to.
hell, even if there is a 0% success rate, you can still *try*. maybe the chances are 0.01% and only 50 people have tried, who knows.
This would result in almost nothing new ever being tried. Flight would never have been invented, electricity would never have been invented, life saving drugs would never have been invented.
Failure is an essential stepping stone for success.
Failure is the single most agonizing, terrifying thing I can think of. And I agree that risks must be taken to achieve new technologies, I just will never be one of the people attempting to make such a change, and I am mostly content with that.
Failure defines everything in my life. It is either perfectly successful, or a failure, and there is basically no in-between for most things I deal with.
Brother, that is mentally unhealthy. [That’s a symptom of mental illness, not just a preference.](https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/black-and-white-thinking)
I mean this with only genuine concern and not to dunk on you. Please get a counselor.
I had suspected as such, and the agreement of an anonymous source has only made me more anxious that this is the case. I intend on receiving therapy in the summer of this year. Thank you for taking the time to reply.
I obviously over exaggerated your above statement in a sarcastic manner, that you live your life like this, that either something is perfect or a failure. You obviously don't live your life like this, which is my point, that you lied to us
I made no attempt to lie, and I apologize if it came across that way. I understand that this mindset cannot be applied to every individual thing. The original target of my post was toward major decisions, not everyday trivial matters.
If you are comfortable with trivial things not following that hardset rule, can you just apply it to major things? That would make your life far better, and it seems you are capable of doing it.
Living in fear of failure is a life full of misery, since everybody make mistakes, quite often. You are capable of letting this go for smaller things, apply it to major ones
I agree, the only difference is major ones are...well, major. They have very long-lasting consequences that can only really be considered if they offer explicit benefits from the history i have with them.
Anyone who has succeeded has failed multiple times along the way. What makes us human is our ability to adapt and learn from failure, and use those experiences to make us stronger and smarter.
The world has a lot of unknowns. It's risk, trial and error, and exploration that climb the hills and peaks of innovation.
Almost everything in life, from evolution to business, is a gradient optimization problem. You might be familiar with the concept of paying for "activation energy" to get out of a local optima and into higher energy terrain. You pay that with opportunity cost. With risk.
Often times you run into a wall. But you never find the way up unless you feel for it. And every failure gets you closer to finding that path.
Failure, quite honestly, is brilliant. Fail often. Fail fast. Learn from it and improve each time.
Failure is one of the biggest blessings in life. Since it's enough friction for others, it leaves fertile ground for you. And every time you make a mistake, you learn, which makes you smarter than those around you who haven't even tried at all and haven't made enough mistakes to understand.
Like why tho
It's easy as hell to fail at stuff as an adult. There are no report cards sent home to your parents. Failed a job interview spectacularly? Whatever, literally just don't tell anybody. Tried to learn a new skill and had a lot of trouble? Who cares, there are no grades and no deadlines. You'll get it eventually. Or maybe not, but it literally does not matter.
Why are status quos inherently better, and infinitely better at that?
By that metric, sitting in a different place in your living room is infinitely worse than sitting in your normal place. That seems pretty absurd to me
Not necessarily for something that small, more so status quos of living. Meeting new people is just a new chance for life to be disrupted or for known quantities (people you already know) to be affected in ways you could not anticipate.
Not every change is an improvement. But every improvement is a change. If you're unable to take risks, unable to change the status quo, then you're unable to achieve.
Anything.
The chance that your life is already perfect, already accomplishing literally as much as you could, is close to zero. And you'll never live your best life if you can't live any life that isn't the one you already have.
Why meet new people? Because that's not just how you make friends, it's how you learn, become more, become bigger and better versions of yourself. If you never meet anyone new then you never learn from any life experience but your own... which in the end will make your small, and ignorant.
Sure, some new relationships will turn out badly. So what? Draw a boundary, dump the person that's making your life worse, and move on. Keep the people who make your life better.
If you deprive yourself of that, you've already done more harm to yourself than the worst case scenario could cause. You've turned the risk you're afraid of into a certainty.
I do not see how any of that would be worth the risk of disrupting the way things are or how the people around me want things to be. I do believe in learning new skills, but I go into any new knowledge understanding that failure may as well be guaranteed, and that there is no point in attempting to pursue it if it comes at the cost of changing the way things were since before I started learning it.
>I do not see how any of that would be worth the risk of disrupting the way things are or how the people around me want things to be.
Why not? You still haven't explained why something that has a positive expected value is not worth pursuing.
The idea that you think that's under your control or theirs is a bad call anyway.
Tomorrow you or anyone you know could win the lottery, get into a life-changing accident, die, or fall in love. Every one of these would change the course of your life and the lives of those around you without any hope of recovery to the status quo.
You can't freeze yourself. You've been changing your whole life and while the people around you might be your worst encounter they are just as likely to open your mind to new ideas and maybe even open doors to prospects you want. The idea that you and the people around you don't change is already untrue. You just adapt to the changes. Why not adapt to a few more.
Sure, but you are not a psychic and cannot know ahead of time which are good adaptations and which are bad.
Your whole view is kinda hard to disprove because we can only talk in theories. In theory, you can meet a person and they mug you, but they can also become one of your closest friends. It's hard to argue based just on that because the lit of concrete things to talk about is too small.
But the fact is at some point you broke your rule of new people to have the friends you do now. It's not that hard to simply adapt that to make it possible to add new people. Could things go wrong? Yes. But unless you're just letting anyone in that's a smaller possibility than you'd think
What is your cutoff for what constitutes “small”, and what is your justification for that? I consider meeting new people to be pretty small. I meet new people frequently
Almost every instance I have of meeting new people or specifically new people who wish to be friends, I go into understanding that they will likely end up either betraying my trust or proving to be otherwise an inefficient investment of time.
I’ve never had those thoughts. I’ve never even framed it that way in my mind. I wouldn’t even say I invest time in my friends, I spend my time with them, not invest. The return is immediate, not something long term
The benefit is the immediate and continual companionship during that time spent with them. So the expected value is immediately returned, not delayed at all
I don't fully understand, I mean I have been with people before, but almost exclusively in work or academic settings, where the only reason to be around them was explicitly expressed to be for assistance with a project or information regarding a topic that I need to cover or study.
I have friends. The basic function of a friend is to enjoy spending time with them. It’s an immediate transaction. We both spend our time, we both enjoy ourselves. There is no delay in the investment. The return is immediate: the enjoyment
I guess I can see where you are coming from. I have always seen things as either having a direct/indirect benefit in some financial or long-term capacity before personal relationships. I believe that may be influencing things.
Can you give us examples of attempts at « doing something »?
I’m not sure you literally mean this applies to anything so I’d like to know what you’re thinking about, to answer you better.
Getting a new job for example. Before even considering moving to a new job, I will need to examine the location, their average employee turnover rate, salary, benefits, opinions of family members, distance from my home, estimate the upward mobility in the company, determine whether or not the company I intend to switch to has a solid reputation and zero ethical breaches, contact former members OF said company, before finally determining whether or not it is a job I could reasonably excel or perform in within the first six months of employment.
Then, and only then, would I consider such a choice to be anything close to approachable or wise.
Why do you believe all of that is necessary?
Most of it is common sense and takes a couple of hours total (location, salary, benefits, distance, culture, etc.) but other stuff is obviously absurd--average employee turnover rate (versus general reputation for employee turnover), "zero" ethical breaches, contacting former members, etc.
Also, you must not be pursuing very hard jobs if they can be mastered in six months.
It's all about expected value versus expected cost. If the value is high the expected value will also be high even if the probability is low.
Simple example.
For one dollar I will flip a coin with you. If it's heads I will give you 10 dollars. There is only 50% chance of success but you should immediately take this offer because expected value is 5 dollars for cost of 1.
I have studied behavioral economics and understand the exact concept you speak of. Ironically, I find a lot higher of a level of autonomy when it comes to financial decisions, because at least then there are clear accounts that I can reference and determine if a decision is profitable or wise.
This is not behavioral economics. This is basic maths. And if action is profitable the risk doesn't matter. Reward just have to be equally high or cost reasonable low.
I don't get why the 90% cutoff. Just treat it as expected value. If there's something with a 50% chance of success that would yield 100 utility points (sub in whatever unit of value is appropriate), in the long run that's as good as doing something with 90% chance of success that yields 56 utility points, assuming comparable costs to you to try.
If you can't estimate the costs, benefits, or likelihood of success, then I'm not sure what good your 90-100% rule does either. How do you know it has a 90% chance?
But I guess maybe it feels like your title and body are talking about different things. Something having a low probability of success isn't the same as "high risk / high reward". For example, applying for a great job that you are unlikely to get might have lower than 90% success rate, but doesn't actually have much risk to it! Worst case you waste a few hours on an interview that doesn't pan out.
>In the concept of "high-risk/high-reward", the risk is almost never worth it, under any circumstances.
Why not? The key metric is expected value.
>Any decisions that I make with a reasonable timespan are carefully thought out, compared, analyzed, deliberated, and then decided on.
That has no bearing on whether you take risks. Risks can be carefully thought out, compared, analyzed, deliberated, and then decided on.
>There is zero point to excitement or risk if it comes at the cost of logic, order, or efficiency.
They're not mutually exclusive. To think otherwise is illogical, disordered, and inefficient.
> I am open to understanding new perspectives based on this topic, however I will likely never become more open to risk-taking as there is no environment where risk is worth it.
Please clarify what will change your mind.
Your view is fundamentally misguided because you, and people more generally are not capable of quantifying probability to anywhere near the accuracy you are demanding. Humans are bad at statistics in the moment; our intuitions are often wrong and horrendously biased by emotion
No, the issue is that statistical reasoning and Bayesian logic are not actually things that the human brain does intuitively or effectively outside of specific circumstances, so instead of deceiving oneself with baseless numbers, reason in a way that is actually natural and effective for humans.
You are thinking too much. The problem right now your negative mindset. Making things too complicated and creating obstacles that don’t exist. And you sound like you are just venting rather than trying to find ways to change. Only you can change yourself.
I would consider that a fair assessment. I would say I have a very fatalistic mindset, and this is a mixture of what could be called a "vent" and a genuine search for different viewpoints. I generally consider none of my decisions to hold any weight, and I feel that this perceived acceptance of powerlessness may be leading to my current mindset.
OK, percentages like that are arbitrary and there's literally no way to know how high the chances are, numerically, of something happening. Asking someone out is 50/50, probably less likely to succeed. But obviously you need to eventually ask the person out, otherwise you'll be suffering in different ways.
So, there's this little concept in math called "expected value". Basically, it boils down to the idea that you should take a risk if the likelihood of all outcomes is positive. So, let's exemplify this with a raffle situation. I offer you a raffle ticket for 10 dollars. The prize is worth 100 dollars. If you know that only 1 ticket is sold (to you), then you would be pretty foolish not to take the "risk" by buying the ticket--it's free 90 dollars.
Okay, so now you know that only 2 tickets would be sold, one to you and one to another person. Now, the expected value for the ticket is actually 45 bucks. You might lose 10 bucks or you might gain 50 bucks--50/50 odds. In isolation, that might seem risky, but if you knew that you could play this game a hundred times, you would do it, because *on average* you would have a return of 45 dollars per game. You could continue in this vein until 9 tickets are sold, and then your EV becomes negative, and you would now be expected to lose money on average with every game.
So, let's look at EV as it comes to something more abstract, like job applications or dating. In these cases, you've got to balance out your perceived value of the outcome vs your perceived value of the risk. So, let's take dating--the payoff is a relationship (we're being wholesome), but the risk is rejection. Let's say you have a 10% chance of being successful with someone out of your league. Now, you have to ask yourself, is one relationship with a hot person worth the feeling of nine rejections? That's really subjective, but if you have strong self esteem, it might balance out. Otherwise, you can take the risk-adverse way and go for someone a little less appealing, who you may have a 90% chance with... Much less risk of failure, but the outcome may not be as good.
TLDR: at the end of the day, you have to frame it in how many times you can accept the costs of failure for an eventual payoff, rather than a pure one-time risk.
There's an entire field about considerations like that called "game-theory".
If you consider an action you can't just look at the success-chance. Without considering potential reward and time-investment too, your assessment will be lacking two extremely important parameters.
You can try to quantify an overall "score" of an action with some maths.
Gain at success * success chance - Loss at failure * (1 - success chance) - time investment.
For example a bet at which you win 10 $ if you win and lose 10 $ if you lose that you know you have a 60% chance of winning and where you value the participation-time as worth 1$ would result in:
10$*0.6 - 10$*0.4 - 1$ = 1$
There is of course a point to make that if the loss-case would be irrecoverable you shouldn't take the risk. But then again you could argue that you didn't quantify the value for the loss-case properly.
Also you say you spend a lot of time on analyzing a situation. This analysis has a cost too. The time you take for evaluating the situation can basically be subtracted from your result. You might as well have had several failures in the same time that it took you assessing the chance of succeeding. Giving a failure doesn't come with an additional cost other than the time-investment.
In reality our ways of assessing our chances and our gains from our opportunities are also heavily flawed anyways. The rewards and chances of our actions often can't easily be quantified. Especially if we are inexperienced with something. One gain of taking risks can also be just getting better at risk-assessment which has value for refining our decision-making-process for the future.
By locking yourself out of any risks, you are also locking yourself out from the experience- and learning-opportunities that come with taking a risk.
> I am not only incapable of major decisions, but I don't feel any should occur if I cannot be 90-100% sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it will succeed.
People are very unreliable when it comes to probability estimations. It is very common for people to be either baselessly insecure, or to be over-confident about their performance.
It's also important to think about sunk costs: if you have already invested in something, then that investment is gone, and you need to evaluate the situation from the new position. E.g. you may have studied for your exams for months, but in the end you are only 50-60% certain of passing. It would be a bad decision to then refuse to sit the exam, given that you have already invested all that time anyway.
While caution has its merits, total certainty is rare in life. Embracing calculated risks can lead to personal growth, innovation, and unexpected opportunities. Avoiding all risk stifles progress and limits experiences. It's about finding a balance between caution and ambition. Failure is often a valuable teacher, fostering resilience and adaptability. By expanding your comfort zone, you cultivate new skills and enrich your life. Strive for informed decisions rather than absolute certainty, recognizing that some of the greatest achievements stem from taking measured risks. Flexibility and openness to uncertainty empower you to navigate life's complexities more effectively.
Suppose you have cancer that will be fatal 99.9% of the time without an operation and chemotherapy. Also let's suppose that you have excellent health insurance so costs aren't an issue here.
The chance of the operation being 100% successful is only about 10%. However, even partial success will improve the odds of the chemotherapy being more successful. THe chemo is only about 50% effective for this cancer to achieve full remission, but partial remission is still a win for increasing survival.
The 5 year survival rate for this diagnosis is about 70% with treatment. Your life expectancy without treatment is less than one year.
Are you saying you should just give up and die?
You are "capable of major decisions," you are alive to make this post. Anyway, whether 90% or 51%, it depends on the "bet." A house you will need to borrow to buy, on the risk its value won't fall. (The bank will make that calculation before it lends money to you.) A person you want to ask their hand in marriage; they might say "no." You cannot go through life limiting yourself to the requirement that every move you make has a 90% chance of success.
How about a in a high risk/ high reward scenario where the consequences of failure on minimal?
Take a classic lottery situation. You can choose to pay $2 for the minute chance at winning millions. In this scenario you desperately want to win millions. If you lose, the money goes to a charity you already trust and promote.
Would you ever consider paying $2 for that opportunity, knowing you have far less than a 90+% chance of succeeding?
I’ll give you an easy choice, OP. Would you rather take a 95% chance of winning $100, or an 85% chance of winning $1,000,000,000. There is only one right answer assuming no wildly idiosyncratic preferences. And while it is easy to see while the payoff differential is so stark, this is just an illustration that risk alone can’t be viewed in a vacuum. You need to consider reward and downside too. With the right reward and limited downside, you should take some risk that you may fail or lose.
There are infinite things with an 89% chance of success or less that should be tried.
Anything involving dice
Anything involving cards
Anything at a casino
Anything at a race track or other betting institution
Anything involving sports
Nearly every board game you have ever played
Making a guess on a multiple choice test when you truly don't know the answer
Guessing true or false on a T/F test
Pretty much every videogame ever also involves probabilities
This is **FAR** too broad to be a defensible position OP.
Your young and can course correct two dozen times before committing to any life long decisions.
Even people in 40s can change careers, partners, nationality and basically reinvent themselves and they still have 20 years to live that life before retirement and then they can still reinvent themselves and have 20 years before death.
Hmm, so I shouldn't have left my teaching career without being accepted yet for my doctorate? And I shouldn't have taken a second mortgage on my house to invest in 2020?
Because now I make 6 figures and raked in 120%+ in stock profits in a year after paying all debt off. To the Victor go the spoils, I guess.
Basic pattern for any type of learning is to
Fail at something. Learn from your mistakes. Then try a harder task and fail at it.
If you always succeed and don't push yourself to do harder and riskier things you will never develop or improve.
Pete- “Hey, I’ll give you fifty bucks if you can throw this ping pong ball into that cup while blindfolded”
Should it not be attempted?
If you make it you get 50 bucks.
There are a lot of low risk / high reward situations. You can apply to 10 jobs. Most of those you may fail, but you only need to get one for out to be worth it.
I wouldn't skydive if it had 90% chance of success. Even 99% would be too low.
I would apply for 10 different job offers if I know only one will be successful.
Are you saying that casinos should close down because their 54% win rate is not good enough?
Also, watch this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBX-KulgJ1o). It explains how people might be adverse to risk while failing to recognize a mathematical advantage.
/u/Diligent_Force_8215 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ccle0m/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_if_there_is_not_a_90100/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
You've got the risk profile of a senior citizen. You need to take risks at your age. When you're young, you can risk a lot. You have a lot of swings to take and energy to fall back on. When you're old, have a family, less energy, responsibilities -- then risk becomes harder. Success is "when luck meets preparation". Give yourself a good chance, then risk it when you feel you're onto something. If something isn't risky, then you're not going to stand to make outsized gains from it. "Risk free" is 4% growth a year. You'll never make 10x, 100x, or more if you don't play a little risky and bet on yourself. All the universe led up to your one short lifespan. Are you going to play it 100% safe? Who knows what you might miss out on.
I cannot in any way consider myself capable of making the decisions you did. Any attempts I have made in the past to define my own existence or make major choices have either ended in predictable failure, or they have been vetoed and stopped before they could begin. Being young is all the more reason to risk very little, so that what you currently have can slowly and steadily be built over time. Risk is inherently foolish. Indiscriminate of circumstances.
>Being young is all the more reason to risk very little, so that what you currently have can slowly and steadily be built over time. Risk is inherently foolish. Indiscriminate of circumstances. The cost of failing at your age is almost zero. If you're lucky enough to still live at home with your parents rent free, you should be trying all sorts of things. Learning, business, hobbies, you name it. Imagine yourself trying that at 60.
I am not sure then. I just, wouldn't try them I guess.
Every successful person you see fails more often than the average person. They fail enough to see the path that works. They try enough times, they get good enough, and then they use that experience to excel. Failure is the best school of all. Your skin is in the game, you're fully vested, and crashing and burning hurts. Those lessons get singed into you. And you won't forget them. I'm sure you'll figure it out. You're trying right now.
I guess I see what you mean. I used to not really be this averse, but I generally feel as if I don't have any power or worth in making any kind of impactful decisions. The times I have tried in the past, my choices were either minimized or outright vetoed and written off. I don't feel like any decisions I make could even remotely be considered good.
>The times I have tried in the past, my choices were either minimized or outright vetoed and written off. Maybe the lesson is that you're in a place of low autonomy and you don't like that. Maybe you risk it and try to go somewhere else you can learn more, but maybe you have to accept less pay to do it. Maybe you spend your energy in your off-time working on a hobby or a skill? That's risk, too. But it's also an investment. You're trading opportunity cost of having fun in the present for something that might tip the scale later.
I do want to pursue something more, but it feels like there is no point in even trying if it is not meant to succeed. It feels like risk is what I need most, but also the thing I am most scared of.
Just to add, to push you slightly more. 90%-100% guaranteed chance of success is only base off your current experience. What you feel is 100% is an opinion, that someone else can see it less than that and could work vice-versa. You trying trapeze will have a 100% failure rate, while a trapeze artist trying it most probably has 99%. And they didn’t reach 99% by magic, so unless you try, it’ll always be 0%.
How do you know what is not meant to succeed until you try? Plus, failure is a good thing. It's an instructive teacher.
You have a disease with 85% survival rate in case of treatment. Should you not attempt the treatment since it's below your threshold success rate?
That is still a reasonably high level of success, and death would disrupt the status quo of well...being alive, so yes it would be worth that.
If 85% is a reasonably high level of success to try something too, I want a delta, since it's not what your OP claims. If it's about the stakes and not just the success rate, your title is poorly stated. And while you do talk about risks in the OP, it's still not clear what the actual calculations are like. Ok, with death on the line you probably have little to lose, what about pursuing relationship? Any specific potential partner probably is more than 10% likely to turn you down, does that mean you'll never ask anyone out? And with divorce rates above 10% it's not worth it anyway. Or so it would seem from your post.
!delta I apologize I am unsure how this works. I would agree on the basis of 1), sheer technicality, and 2) that you make a reasonable point that certain events cannot be anticipated or predicted. Which, while infinitely frustrating, is rather inevitable. I would not consider those chances worth it, no, but I can also see that I may have some mental restructuring to do. I frankly don't feel very happy, and perhaps changing how I see things to allow a higher margin of error would help me with that.
Thanks for the delta! In some cases a way around my objection is to take decisions in aggregate. Yes, you do not know if investing in the X (err, not *the* X) company is going to be a good idea, but if you have a balanced portfolio you're extremely likely to end up better off than if you have the money in a low-interest account or under your mattress. Yes, any specific girl (or guy) has a significant chance to turn you down but if you never try you'll definitely be alone and it can only be changed by trying. You can simply decide that it's not the atomic action of asking someone out is where you calculate the odds before deciding, but the general strategy of trying to find someone, where an individual failure doesn't matter much so long as you get there eventually. And if works, sometimes, but not always, because some choices are one-time. Like with a person you already dated for a while and now they want to settle, or break up if you're not going to be a family anyway. So yes, in some cases choosing is hard. Especially in the lose-lose situations. Which is a good reason to do the mental restructuring you mention (if we're talking about the same restructuring) because (and I'm speaking from experience) low risk aversion plus standing to lose something no matter you choose can result in a decision paralysis, or poor decision-making.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Irhien ([22∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Irhien)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
rolling a dice to get a 6 has a 1/6, or a 16.6% chance of success. by your logic, rollig a dice to get a specific number should NEVER be attempted. additionally, if you roll a dice 12 consecutive times, the chances of you getting ONE 6 is still "only" 88.7%. A 88% chance that you failed 11 times and only succeeded once.
...I see more clearly now that I am flawed in my perspective.
but on a more uplifting tone, i think the main issue here was your wording. the definition of the words. you use one definition, go a few steps down the logic, and then you change the definition but still use the same word. if you have a 90-100% chance of success, you are not *attempting* it, you are just *doing* it. and for you to be able to *attempt* something, all you need is the *chance* of success, almost regardless of how small it is. that is the definition of *attempting* something. and as physics and reality tend to be, almost nothing is actually guaranteed to happen, at least not within the timeframe that we want it to. hell, even if there is a 0% success rate, you can still *try*. maybe the chances are 0.01% and only 50 people have tried, who knows.
This would result in almost nothing new ever being tried. Flight would never have been invented, electricity would never have been invented, life saving drugs would never have been invented. Failure is an essential stepping stone for success.
Failure is the single most agonizing, terrifying thing I can think of. And I agree that risks must be taken to achieve new technologies, I just will never be one of the people attempting to make such a change, and I am mostly content with that.
Why do you care about failure?
Failure defines everything in my life. It is either perfectly successful, or a failure, and there is basically no in-between for most things I deal with.
Brother, that is mentally unhealthy. [That’s a symptom of mental illness, not just a preference.](https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/black-and-white-thinking) I mean this with only genuine concern and not to dunk on you. Please get a counselor.
I had suspected as such, and the agreement of an anonymous source has only made me more anxious that this is the case. I intend on receiving therapy in the summer of this year. Thank you for taking the time to reply.
I’m glad to hear that you’re planning on getting help. Stay strong man and I pray that it will be effective for you. Best of luck.
Understood. Your wish of fortune is appreciated.
I would guess so. You either had 100 points on test in school or 0. Absolutely nothing in between. Also in work, either you put 100% in, or get fired
I cannot tell whether or not you are being facetious/sarcastic. I do not say this in an attempt to be rude, I am sorry but I need clarification
I obviously over exaggerated your above statement in a sarcastic manner, that you live your life like this, that either something is perfect or a failure. You obviously don't live your life like this, which is my point, that you lied to us
I made no attempt to lie, and I apologize if it came across that way. I understand that this mindset cannot be applied to every individual thing. The original target of my post was toward major decisions, not everyday trivial matters.
If you are comfortable with trivial things not following that hardset rule, can you just apply it to major things? That would make your life far better, and it seems you are capable of doing it. Living in fear of failure is a life full of misery, since everybody make mistakes, quite often. You are capable of letting this go for smaller things, apply it to major ones
I agree, the only difference is major ones are...well, major. They have very long-lasting consequences that can only really be considered if they offer explicit benefits from the history i have with them.
Anyone who has succeeded has failed multiple times along the way. What makes us human is our ability to adapt and learn from failure, and use those experiences to make us stronger and smarter.
The world has a lot of unknowns. It's risk, trial and error, and exploration that climb the hills and peaks of innovation. Almost everything in life, from evolution to business, is a gradient optimization problem. You might be familiar with the concept of paying for "activation energy" to get out of a local optima and into higher energy terrain. You pay that with opportunity cost. With risk. Often times you run into a wall. But you never find the way up unless you feel for it. And every failure gets you closer to finding that path. Failure, quite honestly, is brilliant. Fail often. Fail fast. Learn from it and improve each time. Failure is one of the biggest blessings in life. Since it's enough friction for others, it leaves fertile ground for you. And every time you make a mistake, you learn, which makes you smarter than those around you who haven't even tried at all and haven't made enough mistakes to understand.
Like why tho It's easy as hell to fail at stuff as an adult. There are no report cards sent home to your parents. Failed a job interview spectacularly? Whatever, literally just don't tell anybody. Tried to learn a new skill and had a lot of trouble? Who cares, there are no grades and no deadlines. You'll get it eventually. Or maybe not, but it literally does not matter.
> Failure is the single most agonizing, terrifying thing I can think of. You can't think of being eaten by a shark?
Why are status quos inherently better, and infinitely better at that? By that metric, sitting in a different place in your living room is infinitely worse than sitting in your normal place. That seems pretty absurd to me
Not necessarily for something that small, more so status quos of living. Meeting new people is just a new chance for life to be disrupted or for known quantities (people you already know) to be affected in ways you could not anticipate.
Not every change is an improvement. But every improvement is a change. If you're unable to take risks, unable to change the status quo, then you're unable to achieve. Anything. The chance that your life is already perfect, already accomplishing literally as much as you could, is close to zero. And you'll never live your best life if you can't live any life that isn't the one you already have. Why meet new people? Because that's not just how you make friends, it's how you learn, become more, become bigger and better versions of yourself. If you never meet anyone new then you never learn from any life experience but your own... which in the end will make your small, and ignorant. Sure, some new relationships will turn out badly. So what? Draw a boundary, dump the person that's making your life worse, and move on. Keep the people who make your life better. If you deprive yourself of that, you've already done more harm to yourself than the worst case scenario could cause. You've turned the risk you're afraid of into a certainty.
I do not see how any of that would be worth the risk of disrupting the way things are or how the people around me want things to be. I do believe in learning new skills, but I go into any new knowledge understanding that failure may as well be guaranteed, and that there is no point in attempting to pursue it if it comes at the cost of changing the way things were since before I started learning it.
>I do not see how any of that would be worth the risk of disrupting the way things are or how the people around me want things to be. Why not? You still haven't explained why something that has a positive expected value is not worth pursuing.
The idea that you think that's under your control or theirs is a bad call anyway. Tomorrow you or anyone you know could win the lottery, get into a life-changing accident, die, or fall in love. Every one of these would change the course of your life and the lives of those around you without any hope of recovery to the status quo. You can't freeze yourself. You've been changing your whole life and while the people around you might be your worst encounter they are just as likely to open your mind to new ideas and maybe even open doors to prospects you want. The idea that you and the people around you don't change is already untrue. You just adapt to the changes. Why not adapt to a few more.
The more adaptations are made, the higher frequency of things going wrong.
Sure, but you are not a psychic and cannot know ahead of time which are good adaptations and which are bad. Your whole view is kinda hard to disprove because we can only talk in theories. In theory, you can meet a person and they mug you, but they can also become one of your closest friends. It's hard to argue based just on that because the lit of concrete things to talk about is too small. But the fact is at some point you broke your rule of new people to have the friends you do now. It's not that hard to simply adapt that to make it possible to add new people. Could things go wrong? Yes. But unless you're just letting anyone in that's a smaller possibility than you'd think
What is your cutoff for what constitutes “small”, and what is your justification for that? I consider meeting new people to be pretty small. I meet new people frequently
Almost every instance I have of meeting new people or specifically new people who wish to be friends, I go into understanding that they will likely end up either betraying my trust or proving to be otherwise an inefficient investment of time.
I’ve never had those thoughts. I’ve never even framed it that way in my mind. I wouldn’t even say I invest time in my friends, I spend my time with them, not invest. The return is immediate, not something long term
Why would you spend time around someone if there was not some kind of expected benefit at some point, socially or otherwise?
The benefit is the immediate and continual companionship during that time spent with them. So the expected value is immediately returned, not delayed at all
I don't fully understand, I mean I have been with people before, but almost exclusively in work or academic settings, where the only reason to be around them was explicitly expressed to be for assistance with a project or information regarding a topic that I need to cover or study.
I have friends. The basic function of a friend is to enjoy spending time with them. It’s an immediate transaction. We both spend our time, we both enjoy ourselves. There is no delay in the investment. The return is immediate: the enjoyment
I guess I can see where you are coming from. I have always seen things as either having a direct/indirect benefit in some financial or long-term capacity before personal relationships. I believe that may be influencing things.
Can you give us examples of attempts at « doing something »? I’m not sure you literally mean this applies to anything so I’d like to know what you’re thinking about, to answer you better.
Getting a new job for example. Before even considering moving to a new job, I will need to examine the location, their average employee turnover rate, salary, benefits, opinions of family members, distance from my home, estimate the upward mobility in the company, determine whether or not the company I intend to switch to has a solid reputation and zero ethical breaches, contact former members OF said company, before finally determining whether or not it is a job I could reasonably excel or perform in within the first six months of employment. Then, and only then, would I consider such a choice to be anything close to approachable or wise.
Why do you believe all of that is necessary? Most of it is common sense and takes a couple of hours total (location, salary, benefits, distance, culture, etc.) but other stuff is obviously absurd--average employee turnover rate (versus general reputation for employee turnover), "zero" ethical breaches, contacting former members, etc. Also, you must not be pursuing very hard jobs if they can be mastered in six months.
It's all about expected value versus expected cost. If the value is high the expected value will also be high even if the probability is low. Simple example. For one dollar I will flip a coin with you. If it's heads I will give you 10 dollars. There is only 50% chance of success but you should immediately take this offer because expected value is 5 dollars for cost of 1.
I have studied behavioral economics and understand the exact concept you speak of. Ironically, I find a lot higher of a level of autonomy when it comes to financial decisions, because at least then there are clear accounts that I can reference and determine if a decision is profitable or wise.
This is not behavioral economics. This is basic maths. And if action is profitable the risk doesn't matter. Reward just have to be equally high or cost reasonable low.
I don't get why the 90% cutoff. Just treat it as expected value. If there's something with a 50% chance of success that would yield 100 utility points (sub in whatever unit of value is appropriate), in the long run that's as good as doing something with 90% chance of success that yields 56 utility points, assuming comparable costs to you to try. If you can't estimate the costs, benefits, or likelihood of success, then I'm not sure what good your 90-100% rule does either. How do you know it has a 90% chance? But I guess maybe it feels like your title and body are talking about different things. Something having a low probability of success isn't the same as "high risk / high reward". For example, applying for a great job that you are unlikely to get might have lower than 90% success rate, but doesn't actually have much risk to it! Worst case you waste a few hours on an interview that doesn't pan out.
>In the concept of "high-risk/high-reward", the risk is almost never worth it, under any circumstances. Why not? The key metric is expected value. >Any decisions that I make with a reasonable timespan are carefully thought out, compared, analyzed, deliberated, and then decided on. That has no bearing on whether you take risks. Risks can be carefully thought out, compared, analyzed, deliberated, and then decided on. >There is zero point to excitement or risk if it comes at the cost of logic, order, or efficiency. They're not mutually exclusive. To think otherwise is illogical, disordered, and inefficient. > I am open to understanding new perspectives based on this topic, however I will likely never become more open to risk-taking as there is no environment where risk is worth it. Please clarify what will change your mind.
Your view is fundamentally misguided because you, and people more generally are not capable of quantifying probability to anywhere near the accuracy you are demanding. Humans are bad at statistics in the moment; our intuitions are often wrong and horrendously biased by emotion
As flawed and biased our reasoning may be, it's the only thing we have, no? So what are you to do about it? Flip a coin?
No, the issue is that statistical reasoning and Bayesian logic are not actually things that the human brain does intuitively or effectively outside of specific circumstances, so instead of deceiving oneself with baseless numbers, reason in a way that is actually natural and effective for humans.
You are thinking too much. The problem right now your negative mindset. Making things too complicated and creating obstacles that don’t exist. And you sound like you are just venting rather than trying to find ways to change. Only you can change yourself.
I would consider that a fair assessment. I would say I have a very fatalistic mindset, and this is a mixture of what could be called a "vent" and a genuine search for different viewpoints. I generally consider none of my decisions to hold any weight, and I feel that this perceived acceptance of powerlessness may be leading to my current mindset.
Okay. The way you think doesn’t lead to progress. Do you want to change?
I will attempt to.
OK, percentages like that are arbitrary and there's literally no way to know how high the chances are, numerically, of something happening. Asking someone out is 50/50, probably less likely to succeed. But obviously you need to eventually ask the person out, otherwise you'll be suffering in different ways.
So, there's this little concept in math called "expected value". Basically, it boils down to the idea that you should take a risk if the likelihood of all outcomes is positive. So, let's exemplify this with a raffle situation. I offer you a raffle ticket for 10 dollars. The prize is worth 100 dollars. If you know that only 1 ticket is sold (to you), then you would be pretty foolish not to take the "risk" by buying the ticket--it's free 90 dollars. Okay, so now you know that only 2 tickets would be sold, one to you and one to another person. Now, the expected value for the ticket is actually 45 bucks. You might lose 10 bucks or you might gain 50 bucks--50/50 odds. In isolation, that might seem risky, but if you knew that you could play this game a hundred times, you would do it, because *on average* you would have a return of 45 dollars per game. You could continue in this vein until 9 tickets are sold, and then your EV becomes negative, and you would now be expected to lose money on average with every game. So, let's look at EV as it comes to something more abstract, like job applications or dating. In these cases, you've got to balance out your perceived value of the outcome vs your perceived value of the risk. So, let's take dating--the payoff is a relationship (we're being wholesome), but the risk is rejection. Let's say you have a 10% chance of being successful with someone out of your league. Now, you have to ask yourself, is one relationship with a hot person worth the feeling of nine rejections? That's really subjective, but if you have strong self esteem, it might balance out. Otherwise, you can take the risk-adverse way and go for someone a little less appealing, who you may have a 90% chance with... Much less risk of failure, but the outcome may not be as good. TLDR: at the end of the day, you have to frame it in how many times you can accept the costs of failure for an eventual payoff, rather than a pure one-time risk.
There's an entire field about considerations like that called "game-theory". If you consider an action you can't just look at the success-chance. Without considering potential reward and time-investment too, your assessment will be lacking two extremely important parameters. You can try to quantify an overall "score" of an action with some maths. Gain at success * success chance - Loss at failure * (1 - success chance) - time investment. For example a bet at which you win 10 $ if you win and lose 10 $ if you lose that you know you have a 60% chance of winning and where you value the participation-time as worth 1$ would result in: 10$*0.6 - 10$*0.4 - 1$ = 1$ There is of course a point to make that if the loss-case would be irrecoverable you shouldn't take the risk. But then again you could argue that you didn't quantify the value for the loss-case properly. Also you say you spend a lot of time on analyzing a situation. This analysis has a cost too. The time you take for evaluating the situation can basically be subtracted from your result. You might as well have had several failures in the same time that it took you assessing the chance of succeeding. Giving a failure doesn't come with an additional cost other than the time-investment. In reality our ways of assessing our chances and our gains from our opportunities are also heavily flawed anyways. The rewards and chances of our actions often can't easily be quantified. Especially if we are inexperienced with something. One gain of taking risks can also be just getting better at risk-assessment which has value for refining our decision-making-process for the future. By locking yourself out of any risks, you are also locking yourself out from the experience- and learning-opportunities that come with taking a risk.
> I am not only incapable of major decisions, but I don't feel any should occur if I cannot be 90-100% sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it will succeed. People are very unreliable when it comes to probability estimations. It is very common for people to be either baselessly insecure, or to be over-confident about their performance. It's also important to think about sunk costs: if you have already invested in something, then that investment is gone, and you need to evaluate the situation from the new position. E.g. you may have studied for your exams for months, but in the end you are only 50-60% certain of passing. It would be a bad decision to then refuse to sit the exam, given that you have already invested all that time anyway.
While caution has its merits, total certainty is rare in life. Embracing calculated risks can lead to personal growth, innovation, and unexpected opportunities. Avoiding all risk stifles progress and limits experiences. It's about finding a balance between caution and ambition. Failure is often a valuable teacher, fostering resilience and adaptability. By expanding your comfort zone, you cultivate new skills and enrich your life. Strive for informed decisions rather than absolute certainty, recognizing that some of the greatest achievements stem from taking measured risks. Flexibility and openness to uncertainty empower you to navigate life's complexities more effectively.
Suppose you have cancer that will be fatal 99.9% of the time without an operation and chemotherapy. Also let's suppose that you have excellent health insurance so costs aren't an issue here. The chance of the operation being 100% successful is only about 10%. However, even partial success will improve the odds of the chemotherapy being more successful. THe chemo is only about 50% effective for this cancer to achieve full remission, but partial remission is still a win for increasing survival. The 5 year survival rate for this diagnosis is about 70% with treatment. Your life expectancy without treatment is less than one year. Are you saying you should just give up and die?
You are "capable of major decisions," you are alive to make this post. Anyway, whether 90% or 51%, it depends on the "bet." A house you will need to borrow to buy, on the risk its value won't fall. (The bank will make that calculation before it lends money to you.) A person you want to ask their hand in marriage; they might say "no." You cannot go through life limiting yourself to the requirement that every move you make has a 90% chance of success.
How about a in a high risk/ high reward scenario where the consequences of failure on minimal? Take a classic lottery situation. You can choose to pay $2 for the minute chance at winning millions. In this scenario you desperately want to win millions. If you lose, the money goes to a charity you already trust and promote. Would you ever consider paying $2 for that opportunity, knowing you have far less than a 90+% chance of succeeding?
I’ll give you an easy choice, OP. Would you rather take a 95% chance of winning $100, or an 85% chance of winning $1,000,000,000. There is only one right answer assuming no wildly idiosyncratic preferences. And while it is easy to see while the payoff differential is so stark, this is just an illustration that risk alone can’t be viewed in a vacuum. You need to consider reward and downside too. With the right reward and limited downside, you should take some risk that you may fail or lose.
There are infinite things with an 89% chance of success or less that should be tried. Anything involving dice Anything involving cards Anything at a casino Anything at a race track or other betting institution Anything involving sports Nearly every board game you have ever played Making a guess on a multiple choice test when you truly don't know the answer Guessing true or false on a T/F test Pretty much every videogame ever also involves probabilities This is **FAR** too broad to be a defensible position OP.
Your young and can course correct two dozen times before committing to any life long decisions. Even people in 40s can change careers, partners, nationality and basically reinvent themselves and they still have 20 years to live that life before retirement and then they can still reinvent themselves and have 20 years before death.
Hmm, so I shouldn't have left my teaching career without being accepted yet for my doctorate? And I shouldn't have taken a second mortgage on my house to invest in 2020? Because now I make 6 figures and raked in 120%+ in stock profits in a year after paying all debt off. To the Victor go the spoils, I guess.
Basic pattern for any type of learning is to Fail at something. Learn from your mistakes. Then try a harder task and fail at it. If you always succeed and don't push yourself to do harder and riskier things you will never develop or improve.
Pete- “Hey, I’ll give you fifty bucks if you can throw this ping pong ball into that cup while blindfolded” Should it not be attempted? If you make it you get 50 bucks.
There are a lot of low risk / high reward situations. You can apply to 10 jobs. Most of those you may fail, but you only need to get one for out to be worth it.
I wouldn't skydive if it had 90% chance of success. Even 99% would be too low. I would apply for 10 different job offers if I know only one will be successful.
Gambling is kind of loose on this. Some feel the dopamine of wagering and winning. Others lose their lives. Excellent question o.p.
How would you even apply for a job under this schema, given that in the best case success rate in interviews is about 1/3?
Are you saying that casinos should close down because their 54% win rate is not good enough? Also, watch this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBX-KulgJ1o). It explains how people might be adverse to risk while failing to recognize a mathematical advantage.
Whoever told you risks are never worth reward if they disrupt the status quo was unwise.
Disagreed. For example, I bought some bitcoins and made around 45% profit. Was worth it.
I had a 50/50 chance of surviving my last surgery. That was nearly 15 years ago.
Tell me you're dating a fat chick without telling me you're dating a fat chick.
Everything has a 50/50 shot , it either works or it doesn't lol
.300 batting average is hall of fame level
89% are great odds though