Here you will find a collection of thoughts, perceptions, and world-mechanics as computed by the most powerful engine of them all - the brain. In this circumstance, it just so happens that the brain-in-question is mine, and thus, we begin Busenbarkemetrics.
"What is Busenbarkemetrics", you ask? Let me fill you in. Busenbarkemetrics encompasses perceptions of the world and potential decisions as the way I see them - a rationale set of utility functions. It is also a curious discipline that wonders how estimates, projections, and uncertainty can be perceived pragmatically, through a rationale set of quantitative metrics. As such, let me proceed with my first post:
As I'm beginning this new first-time blogging experience, I'm obviously using a new software as a medium to do so. In the process, I'm sitting here wondering about something I've often found myself doing when I upload something via technology, and maybe you do, too. Often times, I'm now realizing, I naturally assert a "test" upload before taking the time to compose what I actually want to say. You know what I mean; a brief post that just says "testing" or something before you actually embark on the long journal of writing what you actually want to say. This way, if you realize there is some error in the software, you haven't just wasted your valuable time typing something you'll now have to re-input.
As I was just about to engage in this practice, I thought maybe I should actually test whether or not this is actually rational. Let's do some quick, fun math to find the probability that the software would actually have to not work in order to justify me issuing a "test" post:
This entire post took me about 23 minutes to write (and yes, I came back at the end and updated the figure to reflect how long it actually took me). If I was to first compose a "test" post, let's just say my total time would have been about 24 minutes - 1 minute to write the test post, check that it worked, start a new post, and then 23 minutes write this one. Now, let's look at the expected value, which we'll solve backwards and get the probability of failure, to see what makes this rational. The model is:
23x + 47(1-x) = 24
x = .95833
Where; 23 minutes is how long it takes me to write the post, x is the percentage of time it works correctly, 1-x is the percentage of time it doesn't work correctly, and 47 is how long it takes if I have to write it twice (remember the extra minute for the processing time).
The calculation of expected value for x above shows that, in order for it to be rational to post a "test" blog, the software has to not work over 4.17% of the time. That is an EXTRAORDINARILY high percentage. If I had to estimate, I'd say the software doesn't work maybe 0.75% or something close. There's no way the software doesn't work over 4.17% of the time; so why do we do these test posts?
It's because people are generally more risk-average than they are rational. Think about it. Why do you wear a seat belt on the airplane, when you know the probability of it crashing is infinitesimal (less than .00001%)? All that time strapping on the seat belt, being uncomfortable, and generally having less fun is surely worth more than the expected value of crashing. Even so, the probability of surviving a crash with the seat belt on is relatively none. Still, though, we all wear the seat belt (some of us because we're forced to do so and not because we want to) because we're risk-averse people.
What's the moral of this incredibly long story? Next time you're about do something just because conventional wisdom, authority, or your risk-aversion tells you to do so, think twice about what you're losing and the expected value!
Stay tuned in the weeks to come for some awesome quantitative modeling on how many games the Colts will win this year if historical data means anything, and for some insight as to why college football fans are mathematically and economically far superior to NFL fans....among much more!
No comments:
Post a Comment