The Five Rules of Risk
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июн 2024
- Get your custom domain or email for 10% off at Hover.com/wendover
Listen to Extremities at ExtremitiesPodcast.com
Buy a Wendover Productions t-shirt: standard.tv/collections/wendo...
Subscribe to Half as Interesting (The other channel from Wendover Productions): / halfasinteresting
RUclips: / wendoverproductions
Instagram: / sam.from.wendover
Twitter: / wendoverpro
Sponsorship Enquiries: wendover@standard.tv
Other emails: sam@wendover.productions
Reddit: / wendoverproductions
Animation by Josh Sherrington
Sound by Graham Haerther (www.Haerther.net)
Thumbnail by Simon Buckmaster
Music by epidemicsound.com
Select footage courtesy the AP Archive
References:
[1] www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...
[2] www.statista.com/statistics/1...
[3] www.statista.com/statistics/1...
[4] www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
[5] www.cmu.edu/epp/people/facult...
[6] www-jstor-org.ezproxy.is.ed.a...
[7] www.cmu.edu/epp/people/facult...
[8] journal.sjdm.org/7303a/jdm7303...
We got some math wrong. The annual fatality odds for licensed drivers in the US is actually 1 in 6,000 which translates to lifetime odds of about 1 in 75.
quik mafs
Phew I got real scared for a second there
Rate to die someday 1:1
Hi.
I'm a fan
Exactly why i came down to the comments.
I can't believe 38,000 people die every year from car accidents... that number is still sickening.
I thought everyone knew the rules of Risk:
1) each player gets random territories
2) you get one troop for every 3 territories
3) you get bonuses for owning a whole continent
4) you get bonuses for turning in cards
5) in battles, highest number wins, defender wins in a tie.
That is what I thought this video was about ( Risk) and now I’m disappointed.
6) You will not finish a game. You will run out of time irregardless of how much you have.
I saw the die on the thumbnail and thought this was about the game. Very disappointed
Disliked. 0/10 no explanation of the board game. Wendover pls fix
Thanks for this. I haven't played risk in YEARS! I'm not even being sarcastic...Wasn't there a little maneuver where you could cross over to the other side of the board from Russia or the Asian continents?
"Why do you walk outside"
"Do you value your life"
wait a minute this isn't vsauce
Edit: *... or is it?*
...or is it?
*Vsauce music starts playing at 140 decibels*
@@hammerth1421 No. This is much much much better.
@@gaveintothedarkness nah, about the same quality.
@@hammerth1421 🤨
The risks of mountain biking aren't about death, they're more about the injury. You're very likely to get injured mountain biking, dying is much less likely.
Well it is also a bit biased. Only those skilled in biking will go mountain biking due to the difficulty, its not something everyone does, unlike driving. Thus, the death ratio is much lower naturally.
@@Misfiring89 Additionally, the units offered were VERY flawed. Likelihood of death *per year* for each activity? Really?
Now, how many hours a year do most mountain bikers bike, and how many hours a year do they drive?
This would far more fair with "likelihood of dying per hour doing the activity".. though that would still leave you with the expertise bias.
Knock human perception of risk all you want, but it's often better than *poorly applied* statistics. :/
This is why I wear a full face carbon fiber Fox helmet when I ride... I'm not trying to prove how tuff I am, I puss out on everything LOL
@@happmacdonald And what was the point of his comparison? Because something else is more risky, mountain biking isn't?
Cars are useful because they save time. Unless there's good public transport, there are no better alternatives.
Mountain biking isn't a necessity. And whatever benefit it provides can be obtained from other less riskier activities. He could have had data on other comparable activities instead.
@@astroknight5 Well, one point could be that if Americans properly assessed the risk of driving, they wouldn't accept the lack of good public transport. Even though I was also unhappy with the mountain biking comparison, I think the point still stands that driving is crazy dangerous for the people driving and actually for the people who opt out of driving.
"When people, somehow, get to decide what risk others face"
**cuts to a crowd of people in face masks**
very subtle...
note the like 10 dudes in that clip alone not wearing a mask lmao
I really appreciated that he chose that clip to go over what he was saying. Subtle, but genius.
Another prime example: drunk driving. People die from it, because some idiots think that driving drunk is an acceptable risk.
@@n.m.8802 Getting drunk is an enormous voluntary risk. You should never cloud your own judgement.
@@andrasfogarasi5014 Big risks lead to big rewards. How many of people's parents met while drunk? A large percentage, I'm guessing.
“One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic”
A quote by Stalin
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagiues the wise?
Ryuk Walker
How fitting.
"Everything is statistics" -a friend of mine used to say.
Ryuk Walker he actually didnt say that
Key takeaway: driving is dangerous and we should be cycling more. Sounds good to me!
City Beautiful comments on Wendover Productions?
There's always motorcycling, that's probably super safe too
But it is also important to note where you are biking. In cities with bike lanes, the odds of getting hit while biking is likely much lower, however if you are biking in a more rural area where you are forced to bike on the shoulder or on the road, (which isn't necessarily maintained well) it is much more risky. Or maybe I fell into a logical trap! :D
Go away! We get enough of this from @notjustbikes!
besides, shouldn't you be working on that soviet union planning video 😛
3:41 Rule 1 - Voluntary Risks Are More Acceptable Than Involuntary Risks.
5:31 Rule 2 - Acceptance Is Inversely Proportional To Prevalence.
6:17 Rule 3 - Disease Is A Yardstick.
7:28 Rule 4 - Novelty Increases Perceived Risk.
9:20 Rule 5 - Numbers Are Numbing.
Wisdom Of The Day: "Our flawed risk perception systems will average out through time to make something similar to real risk. The only time it's really worth considering is when people are making decisions about risk that affects others. When people somehow get to decide what risk others face, perception is dangerous because it can silently and unknowingly eclipse science, statistics and fact."
Side Note: I get why you guys do this in the comment section now, it gives me a sense of awareness, a sense of satisfied organization of what I learn from a video through note taking and sharing it to teach others through the Feynman Technique.🙏 Stay Safe Out There, Guys.
Hidden wisdom, we shouldn't be allowed to vote on things where public risk perception is incorrect, like Germany shutting nuclear power plants after Fukushima
@@trif55No.
Immediate result of that rule; people purposefully release prooganda to skee public risk perception to get what they want (so, you know, what hapoens anyway but much more effective).
Instead we should try to educate, preferable from a source not run my the rulers or anyone who has a horse in the game, as much as possible (so, what we do, but try to do it better with less propoganda).
Also, stop voting on multiple policies as a single package (lile a bill that eliminates chemical waste but also gives control of all industrial chicken farming to the government forever). And create a system that helps people make better policy decisions in times of stress but does nit take away their right to choose (so we don't end up with a another post-9/11 snatching of human rights).
"Give people a semblance of control over it and they will tolerate it." That hit really hard.
Another rule: delayed negatives mean that the activity is disproportionately perceived as having lower risk.
Things do not feel risky if it kills you in 30 years, instead of immediately. There are plenty of examples of this, you're probably think of a few as you're reading this.
Smoking...
That does make sense on an individual level, though. Something that kills you now, takes more from you, than something that kills you 30 years from now.
Delaying negatives does have lower risk... Example: would you rather have a chance to die in 10 minutes or in 10 years? The average risk per minute is lower if you delay it... also you can find a cure/alternative/make a will or plan etc by delaying the negative
Procrastinating risks?
Yea, I can believe that.
"It might hurt me one day, but it's unlikely to hurt me today, so I don't realy have to worry about it today, do I?"
@@catalepsy8916 Works with rewards too that said even that actually makes sense as essentially all standard goods and commodities lose value in real terms over time, for most goods not as quickly as the government guts the value of the currency by overprinting money. Exceptions tend to either be veblen goods (Luxury goods or items that even if they were once mundane have survived exceptionally well and thus gained exclusivity promoting them to a veblen good ie Antiques or Collectables) or finite commodities that have been all but fully exploited (Land for example). So for most things unless the reward grows significantly by waiting it will be worth less in real terms than the same reward now.
Wendover: "Don't you value your life?"
Me: *"Well...uh...I guess?"*
I wonder how much dead-for-a-century composers value their lives
me: no, not really
hes goin vsauce on us
Yeah, no, there are plenty of people who could replace me. My net value to the world is minimal at best.
@@bradleysiddeguzman6993 On a scale of 1 to 10, about 3
"You do walk outside"
Me, an introvert:
1:08 i saw that cybertruck
And here 2:41
And I guess the cybertruck is the safest vehicle you can buy since so far it hasn't killed a single person.
I doubt that it will be the safest car...
Sturdiness does oftentimes mean that the forces acting uppon the occupants of the vehicle increase which leads to more severe injuries
Idk man. That cold rolled steel looks like it'll be safe for those on the inside, but images getting hit by one.
To truly decide if the Cybertruck is the safest car, you'd have to look at the safety ratings, as well as compare it with other cars in the same time frame. Ex: How many people did a certain vehicle kill in the first 100 days. But one factor extraneous factor that's hard to put in would be why the person died. Surviving a roll over is different from surviving a head on collision with a semi is different from surviving a collision at an intersection. If you really wanted to find which car was the safest, you'd have to categorize all the accidents by type of collision, whether the driver was under the influence, the road surface, the speed, etc. While using real world data would be better, it also requires much more time and effort. This is why it is better to base a car's safety on its safety rating, where experts conduct multiple controlled tests for each type of collision.
In the US at least, car safety is determined not by crash statistics, but by accident testing. The forces measured by crash dummies determine survivability. This is why modern cars tend to have large crumple zones, i.e. "aren't built like they used to." They are designed to absorb the crash forces by decelerating slowly during the crumpling action, reducing the forces experienced by the occupants.
I'd rather count car safety as safety for other people that are not inside it.
Most accidents are after all caused by the driver. Instead of everyone trying to protect themselves and crush others, if everyone tries not to crush otherd, no one would have to protect themselves.
Cars that block drivers from drunk driving (protecting others, not the driver), blocking running over a red light, distance sensors that auto brake before you drive into others. And boom you protected the most people, without actually trying to make the car safer for the driver (at least mostly)
If the "cyber" truck has these kinda things, it might be the safest vehicle indeed.
"A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic" - I think this quote explains in some sense very well Rule number 5 and the graph shown
Stalin, love him or hate him he’s spitting straight facts
@@jackevans3609 why would you love him? For murdering every known educated person he could find? Or for starving and killing entire populations of people?
@@Hephaestion96 Both
Fizika Estetike For beating the nazi,for leaving a country that invents nuclear power plant
@@Hephaestion96 It is a set phrase. You dont change it. You would mostly hate him, but the quote is kinda TRUE.
It reminds me of the old axiom that says the most dangerous part of flying in an airliner is the drive to the airport.
Wow Wendover this video is great! You've not only set the record straight on that nuclear power video from a few years ago but also put the problem we are witnessing all over to such a succinct point:
"when people somehow, get to decide what risk others face, perception is dangerous because it can silently and unknowingly eclipse science, statistics and fact"
5:47. Ahhh. Yes. There is the obligatory airplane portion of today’s Wendover video. Now, I must hit that like button
Lol yes.
Actually at 5:52 we have RYANAIR!
was going to write this but i have been beaten
karamel Kadhemm at 1:11 and 2:45 we see Tesla cybertrucc
The true Pavlovian response.
When i find out this isn't about the board game:
*"My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined"*
Reviewbrah is above joining Nebula. He is his own network. (a shortwave radio one, at that)
Now I know the risks of clicking on a risk related video :/
@@OttawaRocks ye
Ive watched alot of videos in my time but ive never seen a point be made without the narrator actually coming out and making it. Neutral, informative, inquisitive, and above all powerful.
This video: “Why do you walk outside?”
Coronavirus: “Let me stop you right there.”
2:47 According to the source, the risk of dying in a traffic accident in a given year is 1 in 6000, not 1 in 600.
Oscarius now adressed
Haha yeah. That would mean >10% of population dies due to driving, over course of a lifetime. 1% more reasonable, but still ridiculously high
Lol RUclips says see reply but there are two replies
Oscarius he put it in the top comment
Yup. I knew driving was statistically dangerous but that 1 in 600 really struck me as too high. Thanks for checking it since I didn't bother.
When reading the title I was wondering why wendover started talking about board games. :D
I am disappointed its not about Risk in a way. :D
ME2
I didn't watch, but here are my 5 rules:
1. Make sure she's of legal age in your state.
2. Don't let her friends try to break you guys up.
3. Always carry your ID on you in the presence of law enforcement.
4. Don't drink around her.
5. Make sure you're capable of beating up her dad before you pick her up, just in case.
@@Zenigundam Some states have laws that say a 20 year old can legally have sex with a 16 year old, but a 35 year old would be sent to prison for sex with a 16 year old. Either A. Dont mess around with anyone who you cant be 110% sure is 18, or B. Know the laws to a T in your area.
I am severely disappointed
"What we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument." C. S. Lewis
Interesting to revisit this. At the start of the pandemic, people were largely compliant with lockdowns because they were averse to a novel risk. And now they're more familiar with Covid19, people are thinking it's now an acceptable risk and refusing to comply with restrictions.
The virus was initially much more potent. Since then, immunity level has increased and the virus effects are no longer high consequence.
@@bipl8989this comment was posted three years ago, when immunity was no where near where it is today, there wasn’t any suitable vaccines developed and people were still dying or being hospitalized at disproportionately high rates… yeah… 3 years ago. big differences
"You do walk outside..."
Yeah, about that
Coronavirus said hi
Yes I do. In my country half of the population acts like there is no pandemic.
@@DacLMK good for them
@@danielpavlick5006 some people have some sense to heed scientific advice and tend to live longer too
@@DacLMK same for me...
1:24 "infinity times anything is infinity"
l'hôpital has entered the chat
I mean L'hopital still know limit of infinite times real number is infinite
Then what is infinity times 0?
@Obi Wan Zero overrides infinity in multiplication.
Good math joke, thanks for triggering the math PTSD :D
Justin Peng anything times nothing is nothing. Even infinity
I love this topic so much! I often talk (argue) about it with close friends and some students as well. It's really hard for majority of people to trust in logic, and not rely on their feelings and opinions.
There is a simple answer to that, personal experience is extremely powerful to the individual themselves(the brain is fundamentally designed to take personal experience as the first and highest motivator for truth) It might not necessarily accurately reflect or even facts or logic. The most effective way to persuade others of certain facts is by understanding the frame of which they see their own experiences and pointing out the facts using those frames. Facts and logic mean nothing without a context.
I got this video for a school assignment. Absolutely love it when I can watch channels I already love and get credit for it.
*Why do you walk outside?*
Me, a PC gamer: what tf are you talking about
Hahahahaaaa so quirky and funny and cool and holsom 100!!!
@@bobmcbobbob1815 Epic Reddit Moment no one loves me but i have the karma
I have not gone outside for 3 months
Ayyyy lamoooooo EPIC HAMERMOMENT!”!1!1!!!!1!!!1!!!!!,,,,!
Huge Throbbing Chungus
Me: Sees the title, thinks of the board game risk....FINALLY A WAY FOR ME TO BEAT OTHERS
Wendover: nope
That's how you get the board flipped over 😂, but yeah that's a great tip
Do a hearts of iron 4 and order 66 everyone 🤣
I swear i clicked it because i thought its about game tactics
same here
Excellent video. This got me thinking about another aspect. The difference between actual and perceived risk is a big reason why it's very hard to design good cost or reward functions for machine learning and autonomous robotics. We try to quantify risk, but we don't do a good job because what we perceive as "logical" the machine does have a concept of it, thus it tries to complete a task in the most literal way possible which often creates risks that we didn't account for initially.
Well thank you! This is what we need. I have tried to explain this about 1000x over the past few months to people I know but you did it better than I ever could have.
I thought we were gonna talk about the boardgame at first.
1) always make an attack every turn to gain a card
2) don't play defensively
3) never start a land war in Asia
4) ???
5) profit!
Same
Same lol
Same
#metoo
"When people somehow get to decide what risk others face, perception is dangerous because it can silently and unknowingly eclipse science, statistics, and facts." A strong final assertion that evokes a call to consciousness in May 2020.
One of my favorite Wendover vids, and that’s saying A LOT. Timely. Had to play it on the TV rather than the phone because I kept spontaneously clapping while watching.
Thank you for posting this, the world needs to hear this right now.
Wendover: Why do you go outside?
me: well statistically speaking 100% of the time I've gone there I've came back alive
Everything you’ve ever done you’ve come back alive from it. What matters is the time you don’t.
Survivor bias
the reason you think the past is correlated to the future is because in the past the past was correlated with the future and that is circular reasoning
Unless of course you were clinicly dead and got revived somehow
@@Skullair313 Well... usually, such revival happens on the spot on in a hospital, or somewhere in between those. So still... :-)
My Takeaway: Tesla Cybertrucks are more dangerous than mountain bikes!
2:52
They are. Battery production etc. produce more pollutants than a producing bike.
Unironically, yes. When cars crash they're supposed to crumble up to absorb the impact but that blocky mess doesn't look like it can absorb anything.
Love it
@@MoonatikYT it's against regulation to not do so
@@____-pb1lg This. If they do release it, it'll be just as safe. All this stuff in the release event is just marketing.
I don't know why but this is my favourite Wendover Productions video. Sense it was uploaded I've watched it 4 times. So thanks for making it!
2:53 the odds of dying while driving are 1 on 600 and the odds of dying on a mountain bike are 1 in 30000. But is this odd significant? a driver drives a huge amount of hours per year.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - MIB
"Why do you walk outside?"
Bold to assume I leave my house
Never leaving your house is also a risk if you consider your mental and physical health
This video was phenomenal- maybe one of the best you’ve ever made, the concept is really intriguing to think about
"Hit by a car" *Slammed by CyberTruck*
Wendover schedule be like “you get one when you get one, and you gonna like it”
And like it I do!
Summary of the video :
- at least one troop per region
- you can roll up to 3 dices if you attack 2 if you defend
- you must conquer the world
- oceania is for *****
- asia is hard to keep
do whatever you want, nobody can agree on the rules of this game anyway
also NO TEAMS, people love to make this rule then break it. (my brother has a silver tongue and I hate him for it, he knows once I take north america its all downhill for everyone else)
When I hear someone say: "If we can save only one life we should..." followed by some asinine restriction, I want to reach for my revolver.
Beautifully put. The ending... excellent. Thank you for donating your time to this analysis!
*"Staying at home is safe"*
*_Looks at 'Another'_*
*Hmm yes I sure hope no construction vehicle crushes me while I'm on my PC*
Looks at police entering innocent people’s homes then killing them
No Name looks at not being American
10/10 obscure anime reference.
There's a reason i'd rather get a cold than use an umbrella
I fear road rollers
I love how the "average car" in this video, is a cybertruck....
toyota corolla
The cars were Cybertrucks. Classic meme worthy Wendover.
One the most important videos ever uploaded on RUclips. I find myself rewatching this video over and over again over the years. May key decision-makers always be reminded of these human biases.
2:47 remember when it was hard to draw a car
well not anymore :^)
Elon musk started a trend there
"Why do you walk outside?"
"Do you value your life?"
*Covid-19 has entered the chat*
And my parents still force me to go on stupid hikes.
"Understanding breeds acceptance"
Damn so true
“Why do you walk outside?”
Me, an introvert: I don’t have such weaknesses
As ever this is an excellent production!
However, I wonder about some of the claims.
For example, it may be risky to go for a walk - but it’s also risky to stay at home (remember 100% of domestic accidents happen in the home), so the balance of going for a walk is not against zero.
Further, the risk is apparently higher for driving a car than riding a mountain bike because even people who ride mountain bikes do it much less often than driving a car (particularly in the United States, where commutes are longer than here in Europe, etc). So giving the annual likelihood of death does not really tell us the risk.
Everything is a risk
Plus with the mountain bike, people are usually aware of dangers and and careful and trained in the matter.
Meanwhile, with cars people feel safer in them resulting in stuff like texting and driving. Also on a mountain bike it’s likely to be your fault while in a car one person in a truck can take out 7 in a van.
Yeah the comparisons between activities with different engagment timeframes doesn't make sense. Like the whole, more likely to get in a fatal car accident than attacked by a bear. Well how often are you camping? Do you live in a forest? Well how long do you spend driving even?
try putting the average person over 50 on a bike and let them ride down a mountain. most of them would not make it down unharmed
Actually, I my opinion it was one of his most poorly researched videos recently. The numbers for car and bike deaths are wrong (see comments from other people) and he is comparing statistical results of totally different sample groups which you should never simply do like that. For a proper comparison of those numbers one would need to put a random sample of the population owing a drivers licence (random sample - young, old, skinny, fat, athletic, clumsy, ...a few hundred or thousand) on bikes. Then let them ride down the mountains a few times and check how many of them died during that time. So if you wanna do this experiment then I will place my bet on the result that mountain biking for the average person is at least as deadly as driving a car ;-)
1:08 “An American has a 1 in 55000 chance of dying by being hit by a car”
*Shows Tesla CyberTruck*
Well played, mate 😂
I'm glad someone noticed :v
1.Voluntary risks
if schools did in fact add mountain biking to their activities that means there will be more amateurs doing it than professionals and that will increase its risk
But not above the risk of driving or, say, living in a state that has legalized firearmes, etc. The risk fo mountain biking will remain negligible, regardless of how much of an amateur you are, because, as long as you’re not suicidal, you’re going to take measures to stay reasonably safe.
@@simonschulze2957 True
2:47 when Sam tells his animator to draw an automobile, but he picks the only one that resembles a tank
Laughs in Tesla
Elon: yes
Honestly, the risk of death while driving a cyber truck is more like 0
@@hosank if you never drive it
@@hosank cause nobody will drive it got cha
Well jokes on you, I haven't seen the sun in my All-room in years, as i'm supposed to as GCP Grey said
I'm enjoying this new type of content.
I would definitely enjoy more of it.
Amazing video, you're a gifted teacher. I really appreciate the last 3 minutes of the video.
Thought we were gonna be talking about world domination but this is cool too
Ayy! Howdy fellow player
My name is Sinaeb and I'm going to do something a little bit special today
“Why do you walk outside”
Introverts: *What is that?*
That's not introverts, that's social anxiety
Walking outside? Sounds illegal.
@@Roch10Family Sad that people misunderstand introverts......
@@AU-hs6zw According to the Oxford Learner's Dictionary I am an introvert. Still, I have some friends (few but select) and I love walking outside.
HockeyPlayer
No that's 'social distancing'
That was a surprisingly deep and subtle ending for a Wendover video
Hey RUclips thanks for recommending me this after I missed getting hi by a car from 1 metres
"Infinity times anything is still infinity"
The number 0 would like a word
mathematically the number zero would not qualify as anything, as zero describes the absence of things or nothing.
Indefinite form reeeeeeeeeeeee
Nothing isn't anything.
There is no true 0 in probability, only limit to 0
It always amuse me when thinking: the probability that you get a number from any distribution between 0 ~ 1 is zero, but you always get one number when you poke the RNG machine. Seriously any specific number's probability is one over infinite numbers between 0 ~ 1 so any number's probability is always zero.
But this "number 0" in probability doesn't guarantee you won't get that number at all.
Infinity times 0 doesn’t exist
"infinity multiplied by anything is infinity"
*zero enters the chat*
Actually anytime a number is multiplied by infinity it becomes undefined, even zero
_No, you're an indeterminate form!_
Airgialie 🤯
zero isn't anything, it is nothing.
I make infinite of mumbo dollars whose value is zero.
This is because people are afraid of nuclear energy, but are less afraid coal, even though nuclear is far less dangerous than coal in terms of deaths per watt hour.
what’s interesting to me is that the graph you showed of of the number of lives saved vs. the value of the lives saved is the same as a risk-averse graph in microeconomics comparing wage or income to utility, while the wrong ones that you thought made more logical sense are the same graphs as risk-neutral and risk-loving. The reason why the risk-averse graph is concave down is because there’s a higher associated risk of having a larger income i.e. one is more likely to get robbed or lose that money, so actually risk averse people gain higher utility from a more “medium” level of income. this is very similar to the connection you drew about how we view money! anyway great video! really made me think!
"The Five Rules of Risk" .... I thought I finally was going to learn how to play Risk
Always attack when you have numerical advantage and hope the dice fall in your favor.
Wendover: _"but of course, Infinite times anything is infinity"_
Zero: Are you sure about that?
Technically you could argue that zero isn't anything as it is nothing.
@@t3st1221 eh i mean it's still a number sooo
1/0
The real joke here is that infinity is not a number, therefore you can't multiply by it.
@@Zych.Grzegorz staright up. infinity isnt an amount so traditional operations cant be done
I love this channel but I have a strong nit pick about the statements in the beginning. The non-zero risk of going outside does not imply that those who go outside don't value their lives infinitely. You have to compare going outside to all your other options. There is literally no series of actions you can take that will have zero risk of dying. And staying inside for your entire life will almost certainly have huge negative consequences, not just for your social life and entertainment, but for many factors that affect your expected life span. (Comparing expected utilities with infinite values is possible, but requires pretty complicated mathematics.)
I love this channel both because of it's consistent interestingness and because of its high standard of accuracy. Given that, and the importance of the implied topic of this video, I'd be much happier to see the beginning of the script changed.
I think this is a very good point. Infinity is hard to calculate, but if you put an arbitrarily high value on a human life (like 10^100^100) and have the value of everything else be something comparatively meaningless like "5", you'd still likely end up with lower risk of losing your life if you occasionally went out over never ever going out. And since all that other stuff can be used to save lives, its primary value comes not from its own value, but its use in saving lives (however indirectly) since that number would overshadow any other inherent value to an absurd degree.
That combined with the mistake over the number of deaths from driving cars makea me doubly disappointed.
The thing about risk, is that if something is done properly the chance of it going wrong is lower.If a seatbelt is worn ,speed limits are obeyed and all drivers are driving properly excluding the impact of crime, weather and natural disasters risk of death from driving are negligible. You just need to aim to do it to the best of your capabilities, stop caring about what you cant control and be at peace with the chance of losing.
"One death is a tragedy. A million is a statistic" - Stalin
А что, звучит хайпово
Fuck yea!
9:20 | Rule 5 - numbers are numbing
Sounds right
Comparing driving to mountain biking is apples to oranges: the benefits of each are different because they are done for different purposes.
I suspect that if you proposed a varsity automobile rally team you would meet even stronger opposition, and danger would be high on the list of complaint.
Conversely, if you proposed secure storage for bicycles near schools and places of employment to facilitate students riding bicycles, the primary objection would be cost, and risk would be a minor complaint.
Exactly. On top of that, current statistics about mountain biking account for a large portion of passionate people who probably got good training and know what they're doing whereas most drivers drive just because they need to, and so they don't really care about how well they're doing it or even about not doing anything else at the same time. If everyone had to go to work by bike across a mountain instead the numbers would probably be different. I still do think that not offering mountain biking as an option solely because "it's dangerous" doesn't add up and makes no sense though, I was just agreeing about the fact that you cannot compare the numbers so easily.
It makes sense that driving at high speeds is more likely to result in death than biking at 10-15 mph.
However it seems more likely that one will get injured mountain biking than in a car
Yeh, that bit struck me as weird too, especially as a few moments before Sam said risk is the relationship between the positives and negatives of an activity.
The positives of driving are huge, hence the potential negatives being over powered, so lowering the.... risk? Thats where "risk" got kinda confusing as a word and how it was being used.
Mountain biking doesn't improve anyones life in the way driving does, so its totally reasonable to say the risk from driving is acceptable, but the risk from mountain biking isn't.
I usually come away from Wendover videos totally agreeing, but this one missed the mark somehow for me
@Rob Davy
I can see where you come from, but I think you are overlooking a few points.
The statistics of deaths in motorised trafic do not just look at necessary uses of motor vehicles, but also recreational and/or totaly superflous ones.
You also seem to ignore the objective benefits a sport like downhill has: Improving sense of balance, motor controll, hand-eye coordination ect. Sure, there are other ways to train those, but the safer ones often aren't fun and thus it's hard do get kids to stick with them.
Also, a sport like downhill poses a very low risk for those who do not partake in it (provided the bikers stick to the downhill trails).
The same cannot be said for motorised transportation. Thousands of people who do not themselfes drive, die each year in MVAs.
So, I think the example he used isn't as bad as you think it is.
@@Bird_Dog00 I can think of some sports and games that could do a few of what you mentioned and kids tend to like games almost universally, does that make the benefit of those activities outweigh the benefit of mountain biking?
very subtle using a cybertruck mowing down pedestrians, i like it
1:11 But there's a VERY low chance of being hit by a Cybertruck, considering that it hasn't been released yet.
But never 0
i feel like this is a psa to the governments of the world
Not just the governments. Heck even I found it interesting and informative despite already knowing most of the stats he listed as well as the various cognitive biases (ie availability heuristic, selection bias, etc) that skew our risk estimates.
This is a PSA to all the dumbasses out there protesting shut downs and people not wearing masks in public...
Was that a tesla cybertruck that killed the stickman?
When I heard that we would likely enter a lockdown, I knew that people would see the numbers of infected people and deaths improve, and decide that COVID is less risky than it actually is. This makes sense, because the most vulnerable among us have taken every precaution, and everyone else is taking it a little less seriously. So the people most likely to die aren’t being exposed, therefore they aren’t dying, while the people likely to survive are getting infected and generally surviving. So the current death rate is below what it actually should be, and now people think that we never needed a quarantine. So predictable
Govts. are at least expected to make decisions on the basis of expert advice, however much they actually do so. This is even more pertinent to ordinary people, upon whom no such expectation is placed. We're allowed to live our lives according to whatever perception of the world we happen to have, a privilege major institutions aren't given.
Sam: "Don't you value your life?"
Me: "No, but technically yes."
Sam: "And how much?"
Me: "Zero value"
Life = 0 value
For you life is PRICELESS.
@@peterbellek1791 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life you're welcome
What did it cost?
I appreciate the cyber truck hitting the pedestrian 1:11
LOL that is so funny
7:52
Seeing this makes me feel confident about myself for once in my life.
10:06 Stalin kind of made this point too. "A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic
"
No no no i do t think that’s where this video was going with that
I thought of that saying when he was talking about statistics.
When Wendover discovers CGP Grey
if Grey had posted this, with the same script, but him reading it with his art style, i would completely believe it
I'd pay real money to hear CGP Grey read out the script from this one. In my mind, I heard his voice throughout the video.
Isn’t it great that he uses a cyber truck as his example of a car🤣🤣
This is one of my favorite videos on this channel!
Fun fact: you have a higher risk of dying while driving to the airport than dying on the plane.
Same when you drive to go mountain biking ;)
“Perception is dangerous because it can silently, and unknowingly eclipse the science, statistics and fact...” - This has to be one of the most pertinent lines in any video, anywhere at this point in our history.
It's on par with the closing line on Vox's video about Mercury retrograde.
"We may be vulnerable to illusions when we think everything revolves around us."
Talking about human life:
Did you know that the value of life is actually calculated, and it is about $10million in the US? This is based on how much risk we are willing to take for a given monetary benefit. It would’ve been nice to include it in the video, or make another video just about it.
"How Much Does Risk Cost", I like it!
@@momish392 "How much is your life worth?"
No one is going to buy it for that much lol
Indeed it's interesting how life values are generally calculated/determined, and more so when it comes to e.g. CBAs on safety features. Of course there's the argument that human life is invaluable, but just like staying indoors (introduction!) there comes a point where you eliminate one risk but increase others much more.
@@fetchstixRHD Yeah, but in this case, we reduced a whole range of other risks as well as a byproduct . Like traffic accidents are much lower, air pollution related illnesses are much lower, regular flu is practically nonexistent this season.
3:10 - Driving might be more riskier than mountain biking in the sense that you are more likely to get into an accident. But at the same time, since you defined risk in terms of balance of negatives and positives, people are more likely to get more positives out of driving.
As somebody that rides mountain bikes for a living, I was very stoked that our sport gets some recognition
This sent me into deep thoughts; something I am not used to getting from this channel.
And now that I have so much time on my hand due to the quarantine, I am not coming out of this entrancing world of thoughts any time soon.
Make sure to share them!
4:05 There's something that's always bothered me about how people perceive the risk of driving, that you sort of alluded to but never really went into here. There are two risk factors to driving, the obvious, voluntary, and smaller factor of how good of a driver you are, as well as what seems to be the un-obvious, involuntary, and larger factor of how good is every other driver on the road. If one assumes that on average every other person on the road creates the same amount of risk as you do alone, then risk scales linearly with number of drivers on the road, and you only control a small amount of that risk.
All this makes me wonder, what part of risk analysis is making the perception of mixed voluntary/involuntary weigh so heavily on voluntary risk negating some or all of the involuntary risk?
Ha! I love it how you used a Cybertruck silhouette to represent a car :D
"Today, risk perception of nuclear power is greatly reduced" - Not true for Germany...
Exactly my thoughts! Funny and a sad at the same time.
Wendover: Five rules of risk
Me: Constantly thinks about the game and global domination
One of the best videos i have seen since a long time!
You are absolutely correct with each of these steps.
But along with risk comes with "cost benefit". it's about the same thing.
This idea that we FEEL unsafe therefore it is unsafe is exactly how people want to argue.
"I feel unsafe! so we should do something about that".
Well if that something reduces my freedom so you FEEL safe but doesn't actually increase your safety, then we have a problem.
Along with the risk taken we also learn to mediate that risk the best way we can.
Of the people that got hit by a car, how many were in the street? How many were walking to their Mailbox? You can break down those stats to learn the major causes of those events to reduce the chances of those things happening. It isn't ONLY going out side that puts you at risk of being hit by a car.
The problem is many times self evaluating or looking at causes of why "bad things happen" are seen as "victim blaming" and so we cannot reduce risk else we get called names for trying to fix or reduce a given statistic. Some political groups make up something that makes people feel good with a catchy slogan but doesn't actually reduce the risk or fix the problem they are against. Instead they complain how the world should be and that they shouldn't have to apply risk analysis.