Life Death Risk and Choice by Bytemite

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Thoughts?

This question is too good and too deep for this board.

We just like to shoot out soundbites and insult each other.

(I'll be back.)

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 9:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Humans are not an endangered species.

The main reason I was talking about the quarantine was I was specifically thinking of like a superbug where continued human existence IS threatened.

I want to imagine that I'm logically consistent but that one has me talking myself in circles on what should be done.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 9:05 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

I'll indulge you.

Unfortunately, those percentages aren't always so accurate, but they can still be useful.

I'd also add that 'usefulness' (for lack of a better term can) of an item or action counteract those percentages. Doctor's might kill people through malpractice more often percent-wise than people with guns, but we also see doctors as more 'useful' and necessary. Some of the illegal drugs can be harder to justify and I suspect that is why they are successfully banned.

I'd rather not turn this into another abortion debate, but I am against abortion because 100% of aborted babies die. I am not against gun ownership (even though I do not like them and feel uncomfortable around them) because a small percentage of gun owners actually commit murder, far smaller than 100%

If anything, these percentages should call for education before banning, and perhaps in addition to banning if the case is extreme enough. We learn things like 'drinking can be okay, drinking and driving is not' and 'do not point or aim a fire arm at something/someone unless you are prepared to use it, many people have been killed this way from an 'unloaded gun.''

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 9:49 AM

Quote:
I'd rather not turn this into another abortion debate

Lol yeah, everyone's getting tired of those I think. I think we've used up our yearly quota.

My curiosity overcame that in this case, I'm interested in seeing how this mechanism works for most everyone.

Quote:
I'd also add that 'usefulness' (for lack of a better term can) of an item or action counteract those percentages.

Good point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 11:46 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I have long believed that all human behavior can be quantified from a formula of Fear vs. Desire.

The moment Desire exceeds Fear, you behave one way.

When Fear exceeds Desire, you behave the other way.

And the passion with which you pursue a course of action has to do with the intensity of the Fear or Desire.

Each person feels Fear and Desire differently, and for different reasons, so making a master formula out of this is difficult at best.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 3:05 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Very philosophical questions, I think humanity has been considering them for quite some time. Sometimes I believe that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, we see it all the time in films, books and in real life, a classic example being the warrior who throws him/herself on the grenade to save their comrades, everyone survived because one gave themself to save them.

But it isn't always that simple, for instance in your quarentine situation, it may seem cut and dried that the sick people should be quarenteened so the sickness can finish itself off let it run its course, but it can get more complicated than that. There are exceptions to near everything, so there are situations where "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few" seems hollow or even inadequate and can be wrong. I think ultimately we as people look out for us and ours, ours can be our family, our friends, people in a similar situation, people with common beliefs, our neighbors, our countrymen, our fellow Browncoats. It can cover a lot of things.

And since I'm new and haven't proclaimed my positions about abortion and gun control yet I think I can get away with it briefly. I'm anti abortion (unless mom is in imminant danger of death, like right now). Also like Happy Trader I believe in the right to own guns, though I do believe background checks and some regulations of that nature should be used.

Anyways. Tough questions, I think Anthony might be on to something with the fear vs. desire thing.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 6:07 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I solve it rather simply by making it personal, and basing on one rule.

Do The Least Harm Possible

Of course, no one holds to their every principle 100% of the time, but it's a good one to stand by.
The problem with it comes when I see a "Least Harm" situation where you might have to harm someone in order to prevent them from doing much harm to others - and I am not speaking of potentials or mighta beens or what they might do, but rather have-done, will-do, in-the-process-of-doing...

At which point "Least Harm Possible" may include some very serious harm unto them, you understand.

There's a Vaj text on this, but *I* can barely wrap my mind around the admittedly poor translation, and most westerners would just blink in stupefaction - however their might be something similar in Taoist beliefs that's been better explained.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 6:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
In the worst case scenario, a given action could harm someone, kill someone, or do nothing.

I am unclear why all three very different outcomes are the worst case scenario.

Quote:
So every time we say, "this could harm someone, but this could KILL someone, so that's worse" is illogical.

I don't really understand this sentence, what "this" means. Are you saying X can harm someone, X can also kill someone else? Or are you talking about two different actions, X (harm) and Y (kill)?

Let's use variables, shall we?

M number of citizens believe with C certainty that D number of dissidents taking Action A has a probability of P to cause H amount of harm to N number of people.

Preventing Action A by strategy X has the cost of CostX. Strategy Y has the cost of CostY. And so forth.

Now let's take vaccines. There is a rampant Plague running around.

75% of citizens (M = 75%) believe with
95% certainty (C = 95%) that
1% of dissidents (D = 1%) who
do not vaccinate (Action A = no vax) has a
95% probability (P = 95%) to cause
20 - 100% harm (H = 20 - 100%, mild to moderate injury to death) to
20% of the population (N = 20%)

Strategy X = fining D% of non-vaxers
Strategy Y = forcible quarantine of D% of non-vaxers
Strategy Z = educating but letting people choose freely without consequence

You can see very quickly that the interactions amongst all the variables are very complex.

I don't see that the function is linear or a simple continuum. Or where logic crosses into illogic.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 7:22 AM

Unless an action has a 100% chance of harming or killing, the outcome will be either harm, kill, or nothing.

I said worst case because even the chance of harming or killing could be pretty bad depending on the point of view, but maybe I should have been more careful with word choice.

Quote:
Or are you talking about two different actions, X (harm) and Y (kill)?

This one. Unless one is 100% (or at least a very high chance) to harm and 100% (or same) to kill, one being worse than the other is an illogical statement because we don't know the outcome.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 7:40 AM

HARDWARE

You know, a similar topic on a different forum made me think about this thread.

Let us say I run a company that is harming the local environment. Specifics don't matter how. Now, back when chivalry was in vogue, I could not hope to continue this course of action. Someone in my local area might take umbrage at my actions and insult me publicly. I could not take the insult without reprisal and would demand he withdraw his insult. If no withdrawal were forthcoming I would challenge him to a duel. He, as the challenged party would be allowed his choice of weapons. I would have to fight to his strengths. I had a smaller chance of winning because he would pick a weapons he was good with.

The mere threat of being manipulated by the rules of polite society into a life threatening situation would prevent improper behavior. But by the mind 19th century those chivalric codes had fallen into disuse. Concurrently, we see the rise of the robber barons.

Food for thought.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 7:40 AM

HARDWARE

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
This one. Unless one is 100% (or at least a very high chance) to harm and 100% (or same) to kill, one being worse than the other is an illogical statement because we don't know the outcome.

But no one ever phrases their statements this way.

They will say "Most people who own knives have a 30% chance of injuring themselves. Most people who own guns have a 30% chance of killing themselves. Therefore, owning knives is safer than owning guns."

Now if what they are really saying is this:

"I am 95% certain that 65% of people who own knives have a 30% probability to cause 50% harm to themselves" vs

"I am 95% certain that 65% of people who own guns have a 30% probability to cause 100% harm to themselves,"

then all things being equal, a statement that 50% harm is not as bad as 100% harm is not illogical at all.

----

The point of contention here is not logic. It is in the accuracy of the probabilities and statistics underlying their premises.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 8:03 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
75% of citizens (M = 75%) believe with
95% certainty (C = 95%) that

I would lose the M variable, and just go straight to an overall estimate of C, certainty. As even amongst people that agree on something, there will be different levels of certainty... And then, some opinions are more weighty than others (experts'). Whether or not man-made climate change is real, for example, has almost nothing to do with what portion of citizens believe it to be true or not (although that may have implications for the strategy).

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 8:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Do The Least Harm Possible

In a world of imperfect probabilities, we are going to err in doing harm.

Some would rather punish one innocent person, than let a guilty person go free.

Others would rather let a guilty person go free, than punish one innocent person.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 8:23 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
This one. Unless one is 100% (or at least a very high chance) to harm and 100% (or same) to kill, one being worse than the other is an illogical statement because we don't know the outcome.

It's not illogical, it's just the maths gets more complicated.

Risk = probability of injury x severity of injury (quantified, as % harm say)

Engineers do risk analysis for factories and power plants and bridges all the time. What is the probability of this component failing, and this piece of aparatus blowing up? And what will the fallout be in damage to human lives/the environment?

In the end they will have categories for different accidents according to how bad they are, eg. Category A: 'Small risk of injury to 1-5 people; Category F: Major pollution of surrounding area, 100-5000 deaths. And for each category there will be an ascribed 'acceptable level of risk' (probability of it happening) - so the probability of a particular component failing will have to be reduced to a certain acceptable level. You do this by engineering the component to be stronger (at higher cost), and having more frequent inspections/replacements of that component (again at higher cost) etc.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 8:59 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Do The Least Harm Possible

Quote:
Others would rather let a guilty person go free, than punish one innocent person.

Hmm. I believe it's possible to unite these two principles (and others like it) into a single unified theory. You just have to be quite abstract and long-term in your assessment of what harm will be caused by a particular action. Harm can be instantaneous, or further down the line. And harm caused can also be subtle (e.g. psychological rather than physical, or harm done to society).

Punishing criminals for the good of society is itself quite abstract, because you are inflicting harm on one person, in the hope that it will reform their harmful actions and deter others - and eventually prevent harm to society.

The idea of letting a guilty person go free rather than punish an innocent one can also be made to conform to the least harm principle with some abstract thought. Say you take the opposite extreme and resolve to punish all suspected murderers, thieves and rapists, so that not one goes free. Less criminals on the street will reduce the amount of harm society suffers through criminal action - but you may be subtly harming society in other ways. Presumed innocence is gone. Innocent people (the majority of people) will learn to live in fear - not of the consequences of breaking the law, but the consequences of falling under suspicion of any kind. So there is some psychological trauma (harm) to the population there, and also a warping of society's sense of justice/right and wrong (more harm - to the health of society).

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 9:11 AM

Quote:
They will say "Most people who own knives have a 30% chance of injuring themselves. Most people who own guns have a 30% chance of killing themselves. Therefore, owning knives is safer than owning guns."

Right. What are we arguing about?

This is exactly the scenario I'm taking about. Sometimes things that sound common sensical are illogical. (Note also common sensical but illogical is not bad!)

In your given conditions you can not know in advance whether owning a knife is safer than owning a gun. Both have a 70% chance of doing nothing. You rank the gun higher because you weight the consequence of it's risk higher.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 9:14 AM

Quote:
Risk = probability of injury x severity of injury (quantified, as % harm say)

Engineers do risk analysis for factories and power plants and bridges all the time. What is the probability of this component failing, and this piece of aparatus blowing up? And what will the fallout be in damage to human lives/the environment?

This is a different issue. It is not comparing two actions or events and making a claim which is safer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
They will say "Most people who own knives have a 30% chance of injuring themselves. Most people who own guns have a 30% chance of killing themselves. Therefore, owning knives is safer than owning guns."

Right. What are we arguing about?

I dunno. I thought you said such a conclusion would be illogical. I am saying, it wouldn't be illogical.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 1:57 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

The personal chivelry point is interesting. Of course if you were the king you could get away with it, but I do see in your example how chivelry might interfere with one common man taking power over others like that. But there are always exceptions, but an interesting point. I don't understand the other maths stuff so I don't have anything to add there.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 4:35 PM

Quote:
I dunno. I thought you said such a conclusion would be illogical. I am saying, it wouldn't be illogical.

It's common sense. There's a difference.

did you read my explanation after that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 5:19 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk = probability of injury x severity of injury (quantified, as % harm say)

Engineers do risk analysis for factories and power plants and bridges all the time. What is the probability of this component failing, and this piece of aparatus blowing up? And what will the fallout be in damage to human lives/the environment?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a different issue. It is not comparing two actions or events and making a claim which is safer.

Eh? I only gave one example, and I could frame another one in terms of 'actions' and 'events' just as easily. And why would it be 'different'? Risk analysis is applicable to any situation involving risk (not just engineering ones), eg. travelling to work via walking vs. cycling vs. driving.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 5:28 PM

Yes, it's a risk assessment. In fact, I could give you a risk assessment about toxicology of DNAPL in silty aquifer if I wanted to.

But it is not the general type of risk assessment I'm discussing, which is the logical mechanism used to assess moral dilemmas. Your bridge example is simply just not a moral issue, unless you want to include embezzlement from the infrastructure as part of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 5:31 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Ok just to check that I know what you're talking about:

There are two high beams of equal dimensions. One is elevated 2 feet off the ground, the other is elevated 20 feet off the ground. Let's say the person we force to walk across them is sleepwalking and unaware of the height, so the probability of falling off is exactly the same. Now if I say that the situation with the 20ft beam is more dangerous/risky you say that's illogical? On what basis?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 5:34 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I could give you a risk assessment about toxicology of DNAPL in silty aquifer if I wanted to.

Are you flirting with me?

Quote:
Your bridge example is simply just not a moral issue,

Is gun versus knife ownership a moral issue? I'm missing something.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 5:41 PM

How likely is the chance of falling off?

If the chance of falling off is less than 50%, both have equal risk.

If the chance of falling off is more than 50%, then one one could conceivably be more risky than the other. In the given case, the 20 foot tall beam is more likely to result in harm than the two foot beam.

The outcome is still not guaranteed, but by common sense, at least, this is reasonable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 5:50 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
If the chance of falling off is less than 50%, both have equal risk.

Not by any logic I know of...

Think we'll just have to ag to dis on this one.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 5:53 PM

Quote:
Your bridge example is simply just not a moral issue,

Is gun versus knife ownership a moral issue? I'm missing something.

It was useful to illustrate a point that came up. In the sense it was suggested, CTS was asking if a gun that could cause death is worse than a dagger that would cause harm. (Under certain conditions, yes.)

The initial effort in the first post was an assessment of perception of risk as pertains to moral dilemmas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 6:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It's common sense. There's a difference.

What's common sense? What's a difference?

Quote:
did you read my explanation after that?

Yes. I'm afraid that I do not understand the thrust of your argument at all.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 6:05 PM

Quote:
Not by any logic I know of...

Think we'll just have to ag to dis on this one.

Okay. *shrug*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 6:10 PM

It's this. A lot of people do this without realizing they do this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias

And again, it's not bad. NOT A BAD THING. Because it often is common sense.

Some cognitive biases can be justifiable. But I'm trying to point out the existence of this for people's edification.

I'm also very interested in occasional conflicts I see in harm/risk assessments people give here, and to determine the mechanism behind it, and I think the difference is somehow related to the logic mechanism I'm exploring.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 6:22 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

I think it's very interesting as well. Afraid I don't have anything more than that to contribute at this point though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2011 6:26 PM

Yeah, I think this may be all I can get, I don't think I'm able to be clear enough about what I'm trying to accomplish. To explain. I have good days and bad days.

But thanks everyone for indulging my curiosity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 8:40 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
It's this. A lot of people do this without realizing they do this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias

That seems straight forward. I would say that it IS bad, because it's illogical. But how does it relate to this thread?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 9:19 AM

Quote:
One will often judge a past decision by its ultimate outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made, given what was known at that time. This is an error because no decision maker ever knows whether or not a calculated risk will turn out for the best.

Using the gun vs. knives example, there is a claim being made that owning a knife is safer than owning a gun.

The calculated risk is the statement CTS gave, a theoretical scenario where a gun has a 30% chance of killing, and a knife has a 30% chance of causing harm.

Quote:
Those presented with bad outcomes rated the decision worse than those who had good outcomes.

The bad outcome here is considered to be death, the preferable outcome is harm, if death is considered to be the alternative.

The decision being made is "is it better to own a knife, or a gun?" But we don't know if the statistics will bear out for any one particular case.

There's also third outcome, where nothing happens, that is actually the best outcome. It's more likely to occur than the other two outcomes.

So based on the data, at 30% chance each of an event versus 70% chance each at a non-event, you can't determine with any degree of accuracy which weapon is "safer." As in, which weapon will result in harm OR death.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 9:20 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Just to expand on risk analysis.

Comparing two different 'risky' actions:

1. Skydiving
2. Walking over a high beam elevated 12 ft over a pool of water

Risk = probability of harm x severity of harm

For no. 1 there is a very small possibility of something going wrong like your chute not opening - but the consequence is almost certain death. So the calculation for risk would be something like R1 = 0.0001 probability x 100% harm (death) --> R1 = 0.01

For no.2 there is a 50-50 chance of falling off say, but the severity of injury cannot be high because there is water below, but you will likely do a belly flop that will sting a bit.

So R2 = 0.5 probability x 0.2% harm --> R2 = 0.01

So the actions 1 and 2 can be said to have equivalent risk, even though the probabilities and severity of injury are very different. In the same way accidents with guns could be said to be more risky than accidents with knives, even though the probability of an accident with a knife is probably higher.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 9:24 AM

I understand that. The problem here is that weighing the outcome that way leads to a potentially false impression of the safety of one versus another.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 9:28 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
So based on the data, at 30% chance each of an event versus 70% chance each at a non-event, you can't determine with any degree of accuracy which weapon is "safer." As in, which weapon will result in harm OR death.

You can, it's just calculating the expected value: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_value

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 9:33 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Life, Death, Risk and Choice"

I would argue that there are many here who don't know of, or understand, these 4 words.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2011 10:27 AM

Yes, that's pretty much what I was talking about when I was talking about weighing more strongly towards death than harm.

Quote:
In probability theory, the expected value (or expectation, or mathematical expectation, or mean, or the first moment) of a random variable is the weighted average of all possible values that this random variable can take on. The weights used in computing this average correspond to the probabilities in case of a discrete random variable

In this case I'm questioning the use of it because we already HAVE a probability of occurrence.

Your units aren't canceling correctly. See, when I do a risk assessment on chemical toxicity, I think you're supposed to end UP with probability, you don't modify an existing probability. In my case, you would do an exposure rate, mg/day, and multiply it by an acute or chronic toxicity rating, which is how long a dose of chemical takes to result in adverse side effects. The duration cancels, the quantity cancels, and you're left with a unitless percentage. In our risk settings, we usually aim for a one in a million chance of adverse effects.

So the problem I'm having with how you're applying risk assessment to this particular case is that it may, or may not accurately predict the outcome of the event in question, because the probability outcome has been weighted.

I've got some work to do, so why don't we just classify this as two different methodologies of calculating risk.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:01 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So based on the data, at 30% chance each of an event versus 70% chance each at a non-event, you can't determine with any degree of accuracy which weapon is "safer." As in, which weapon will result in harm OR death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can, it's just calculating the expected value: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_value

Sorry that was rushed, I didn't think it through or explain it. Quantified risk is like an expected value, but never mindd about that...

Quote:
Your units aren't canceling correctly. See, when I do a risk assessment on chemical toxicity, I think you're supposed to end UP with probability, you don't modify an existing probability. In my case, you would do an exposure rate, mg/day, and multiply it by an acute or chronic toxicity rating, which is how long a dose of chemical takes to result in adverse side effects. The duration cancels, the quantity cancels, and you're left with a unitless percentage. In our risk settings, we usually aim for a one in a million chance of adverse effects.

It's the same basic formula, just I'm calculating risk from a given set of circumstances, and you're constraining risk and thus calculating the allowable circumstances. We're looking at different sides of the equation.

Quote:
So the problem I'm having with how you're applying risk assessment to this particular case is that it may, or may not accurately predict the outcome of the event in question, because the probability outcome has been weighted.

It won't predict outcome, that's not the point. It gives a numerical value to how dangerous or 'risky' something is. The only inaccuracy is the weighting - how do you quantify harm? Death = 100% harm - blinding = 20% harm?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:18 AM