Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday October 08 2017, @12:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the going-out-on-a-limb dept.

the researchers have focused on risk preference or aversion, and the possibility that it might be measurable and compared to others, offering a scale of sorts.

To learn more about how eager people are to engage in risky behavior, the researchers enlisted the assistance of 1500 volunteer adults to take a series of tests (39 tests in all), which together were meant to gauge a person's desire to seek out risky behavior. The team then analyzed the data and found that 61 percent of the variation in risky behavior scores could be summed up with a single component—a person's risk preference quotient, if you will. The remaining factors could all be attributed to which particular type of risk was involved. The single component, which the team dubbed as R, is general, the team notes, which suggests it can be applied multiple to[sic] risk situations along with other factors attributable to a particular type of risk.

The top level in intelligence quotient is called, "genius." Should the top level in risk quotient be called, "Hey Y'all, hold my beer?"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by fyngyrz on Sunday October 08 2017, @01:02AM (29 children)

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday October 08 2017, @01:02AM (#578717) Journal

    The top level in intelligence quotient is called, "genius." Should the top level in risk quotient be called, "Hey Y'all, hold my beer?"

    That's too long. I suggest it be called "Trump", or just "T."

    The only problem is that we won't know just how high the on the scale that lands for a while yet.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Offtopic=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Offtopic' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday October 08 2017, @01:24AM (25 children)

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday October 08 2017, @01:24AM (#578721) Homepage

    The problem with these oversimplifications is that there are different types of intelligence, just as there are different types of risk-aversion.

    A classic example of this is your athlete who has wicked visual-spatial intelligence but sucks in the classroom. Even among academics you have math geeks who have a 1st grade command of English, or super-geniuses at one subject who suck at everything else and can barely wipe their own asses.

    As far as risk-taking vs. risk-aversion, I'll use myself as an example. I don't gamble. On the extremely rare occasion I do, I never spend more than 20 bucks and quit the second I come out ahead, even if it's only a few dollars. I would rather be a corporate whore and have decisions made for me than have to deal with the uncertainty of running my own healthy business. But I get drunk and pick fights with people and jump-kick trash bins in the alley and participate in dangerous mosh pits that have left me with elbows to the face and melon-sized bruises.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @01:28AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @01:28AM (#578724)

      But I get drunk and pick fights with people

      You're an asshole but you're our asshole and this is why we love you!

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Sunday October 08 2017, @01:48AM (19 children)

      by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday October 08 2017, @01:48AM (#578734) Journal

      A classic example of this is your athlete who has wicked visual-spatial intelligence but sucks in the classroom.

      No, not really. The capacities required for the one aren't applicable to the other. That's not the case with risk. Financial risk is financial risk, just as baseball is baseball. To be good at avoiding either, quite aside from an innate capacity to comprehend money, you need to understand the game and adjust your behavior accordingly.

      1. Won't gamble extensively
      2. Exposes self to all manner of potential injury

      The two behaviors you have described reveal a difference in the ability evaluate risk.

      On the one hand, you can see that "gambling" puts you at financial risk, and so you refrain, adopting a very conservative strategy. On the other hand, you put yourself at great physical risk, thereby putting your finances at great risk – physical injury can reduce or eliminate your ability to work, and it can incur numerous extra expenses upon you that are similarly unpredictable as to the results of the kind of gambling you allude to. This is the opposite of a conservative strategy.

      The former, in the face of the latter, does not say that you are low on a "takes risks" scale; it simply says that you are ineffective at evaluating what is a risk, and what is not. Based on what you've written here, you'd be very high on a "takes risks" scale. What you have described is a failure to understand that you do gamble, and poorly. In other words, you don't understand the game at its most fundamental level.

      • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday October 08 2017, @01:57AM (4 children)

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday October 08 2017, @01:57AM (#578735) Homepage

        Well we can agree to disagree, but I modded you up anyway.

        I think I'm pretty damn effective at evaluating risk, because I have demonstrated that I do understand the game, even if it is a drunken one involving flying pointy limbs, and I do adjust my behavior accordingly. You could wag your finger and say something like, "Well, you've just been lucky, and your comeuppance will come soon."

        Well, shit, I could walk across the street(sober) and get hit by a car tomorrow or be struck by lightning in a freak accident. I am knowingly taking less risk when engaging in daily routines than I do when getting drunk, but Shit Happens™.

        • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:09AM (3 children)

          by Whoever (4524) on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:09AM (#578739) Journal

          No. I think that you are just risk-averse.

          I don't think that you are good at evaluating risks, because the risk from the mosh pit isn't as high as you are suggesting. The risk to your overall life from uncontrolled gambling is far, far higher than the risk incurred in the mosh pit.

          • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:28AM (2 children)

            by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:28AM (#578744) Journal

            the risk from the mosh pit isn't as high as you are suggesting

            Disagree. [go.com]

            • (Score: 2, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:34AM (1 child)

              by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:34AM (#578745) Homepage

              Yup, that is true. One of my buddies, decades ago, went to a Megadeth concert and was kicked in the face by a crowd-surfer, knocked out cold. When he came to, slumped down in the back corner of the club, he had a VIP badge pinned to his chest.

              • (Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Sunday October 08 2017, @03:36AM

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 08 2017, @03:36AM (#578755) Journal

                he had a VIP badge pinned to his chest.

                Now, this is what I call a great realized risk/harm.
                Could be worse, of course - imagine if no pins would have been available, so they'd nailed the badge into his chest.

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:06AM (12 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:06AM (#578738) Journal
        "The former, in the face of the latter, does not say that you are low on a "takes risks" scale; it simply says that you are ineffective at evaluating what is a risk, and what is not. Based on what you've written here, you'd be very high on a "takes risks" scale. What you have described is a failure to understand that you do gamble, and poorly. In other words, you don't understand the game at its most fundamental level."

        I'm not saying you're completely wrong but I suspect there is more to it. I don't pick fights with people, even when I was young and relatively aggressive I was never the type to start something - but I used to get in a lot nonetheless. Simply because I don't back down. And that's not a result of a risk analysis of a specific situation but rather a longer term analysis. In the short term, it's usually beneficial to pay the Dane, but in the long term that just guarantees he'll keep coming back for more and worse. It's always better to fight, win or lose, because not fighting is worse than fighting and losing.

        I suspect there is a similar logic behind what EF describes, although obviously he's his own unique case.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:23AM (8 children)

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:23AM (#578742) Journal

          Simply because I don't back down.

          I'd give you the same answer: You don't really understand the fundamentals of the game. The optimum choice in terms of risk is to back down if possible.

          I'm a martial arts instructor; I've been doing that for forty years after a ten year stint as student-only (still a student, always a student.) In my experience, the optimum choice is always to not go physical unless you must go physical. This is true on the physical consequences aspect of outcomes; on the legal aspect; and on the financial aspect. It's also true in the sense of the social contract: the liberty-centric take on that is: do not knowingly and/or directly put other's health and finances at risk unless you must. Your right to swing your fist stops at their person, barring their swinging first or posing such a radial threat that this is the only conclusion you can draw (basically, in the face of an extreme threat level.)

          Doing otherwise increases all three risks, which are all severe, in the sense that life-changing in the negative direction is implicit in the taking thereof. To balance these risks, one must be ameliorating something worse, else the higher risk path has been chosen. The key to all of this is level-headed evaluation of all of the major consequences at hand; to do that, one must understand the paths that flower from the choices one makes. You must understand the game to manage risk. Otherwise, risk will manage you.

           

          • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:39AM (4 children)

            by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:39AM (#578747) Journal

            s/radial/radical/

            sigh. :)

            • (Score: 4, Funny) by coolgopher on Sunday October 08 2017, @06:30AM (2 children)

              by coolgopher (1157) on Sunday October 08 2017, @06:30AM (#578800)

              Yeah I thought you went off on a tangent there...

              • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @04:17PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @04:17PM (#578900)

                can i give you +1 internets. replies of your sort are why I take the time to read forums like this even if the weather is nice on a sunday and I could be doing something else...

            • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @06:37AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @06:37AM (#578801)

              "Radial" is also correct. If they come at you with a roundhouse kick (the most radial of all attacks), they might be Chuck Norris in disguise, and that's the most radical threat of all.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:59AM (1 child)

            by Arik (4543) on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:59AM (#578749) Journal
            "I'd give you the same answer: You don't really understand the fundamentals of the game."

            Right back at you.

            "The optimum choice in terms of risk is to back down if possible."

            Only if you're playing as an invertebrate. And if you are, the operative phrase needs to be expanded. s/if/as soon as

            "I'm a martial arts instructor"

            Good for you, there's millions that can claim that, I've been taught by some pretty good ones myself.

            "In my experience, the optimum choice is always to not go physical unless you must go physical."

            True enough, but that doesn't really disagree with what I said either. In fact nothing you said in your last two paragraphs was actually wrong.

            Quite a let-down, after the whole you don't understand the game beginning.

            Perhaps the disagreement is merely in the wording. It's always *possible* to back down, the trouble is that the foreseeable consequences can be worse than fighting, even if you lose. That makes it a very poor option. If you're stupid and started to start something you shouldn't have, then yes, by all means, back down gracefully. But if some jackass twice your size gets a few beers worth of courage up and decides you're the little twerp he's going to externalize all of his repressed anger out on, there's not much backing down you can do there. Back down from existing? Back down from occupying your little slice of space in this world?

            Yes, you *may* be clever and lucky enough to beat the guy with words instead of fists in that situation - and it's best if you can - but one way or another there's a fight there and you have no good way to back down from it. Turning your back on someone that's being aggressive is usually a very bad move. Just standing there non-aggressively with your hands down begs a sucker punch, don't do that unless you're absolutely certain he's drunk enough and you're fast enough - you want to talk about risks? That's a risk. That's a lot bigger risk than putting your hands up and setting a fence, in many situations. Doing that will be taken as aggressive and is likely to trigger the aggressive man to attack *but that's just fine.* Let him attack now while I'm ready for it, instead of giving him a free shot later.

            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 1) by Arik on Sunday October 08 2017, @03:06AM

              by Arik (4543) on Sunday October 08 2017, @03:06AM (#578750) Journal
              s/later/at his leisure.

              hah.
              --
              If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @12:40PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @12:40PM (#578861)

            The optimum choice in terms of risk is to back down if possible.

            I disagree with this. The optimum choice is usually to stand your ground, keep your cool and attempt to verbally diffuse the situation. Good natured humour, politeness and authoritative body language are the best defensive weapons you have. If you back down you cede control and that is never a winning strategy against an aggressor. I worked as a bar manager to pay my way through college and my responsibility there extended to the customers, backing down was always the more risky option.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 08 2017, @03:59AM (2 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 08 2017, @03:59AM (#578765) Journal

          Yup - insightful, IMO. I found myself in a similar situation. Being a runt, damned near everyone thought they could push me around in school, after school, whatever. I couldn't win a fight, but I made damned sure that anyone who hurt me was also hurt. Eventually, the badasses stopped coming back for more. Back then, I hadn't heard of the Dane, but I certainly understood the concept!

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @04:15AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @04:15AM (#578773)
            Not too far from my experience. I actually defeated them with no brawn of my own once - playing one group against another - but then we moved again and I had to start over. When you're 5'10 and weigh 126 lbs, and on top of that you're a geek, and on top of that you're the only kid that doesn't do christmas carols or eat pork... you learn that a beating isn't the worst thing to take, you learn to ignore what's happening to you and focus on making sure the other guy feels it for days, or else you'll never stop running.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:04PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:04PM (#578879)

              When you're 5'10 and weigh 126 lbs

              Do you even lift bro?

              Bullies and other predators are after easy prey, simply holding your body correctly is enough of a subtle cue for them to pass you over. An additional 10lbs of upper body muscle mass would have resulted in a small change in your posture and that change would have read to anyone sizing you up as confidence or "don't mess with this guy". Muscles are heavy, 10lbs on your arms, chest, abs and thighs would have changed the presentation without really changing your physique.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:00PM (#578878)

        "The capacities required for the one aren't applicable to the other."

        Spacial awareness and muscle memory are both state, as is retained memory. Academics like to be silly about what constitutes "intelligence". The truth of it, is that it doesn't matter. Intelligence has little to do with happiness. The former being a metric for humanity, the latter being metrics for humans.

        In regards to the OP, this sounds like a case where a bunch of sociologists who are trying to metric things they haven't first isolated or qualified.

        When your young risk is an existential journey. Which in most cases is really just a corporate branded holiday on planet stupid. Once you've actually looked death in the eyeball a few times, risk becomes "that dumb shit I was suckered into doing in my youth". It is fortunate for many people that this is so. For if we were willing to take the risks that we were sold in our youth, in our old age, the people selling those risks might find themselves in a riskier position in life themselves. And perhaps they should.

    • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Sunday October 08 2017, @04:03AM (3 children)

      by unauthorized (3776) on Sunday October 08 2017, @04:03AM (#578768)

      The problem with social science is that social scientists keep changing terms until the outcome matches their desired worldview. Distribution of intelligence does not match what we want it to match? Let's redefine intelligence so that it no longer means high innate abstract problem solving ability. Problem fucking solved!

      Intelligence does not represent just any function of the brain, it specifically represents the "general purpose" part of the brain as opposed to specialized functionality, or in other words the ability to resolve tasks regardless of instinctive and trained behavior. If the brain was a computer, then "intelligence" would be the performance of the CPU, while nonsense bullshit terms like "emotional intelligence" would refer to things like the sophistication and quality of the Ethernet interface firmware. You can programs faster if your CPU is faster, but if your Ethernet card sucks, you will still randomly disconnect from the WiFi.

      • (Score: 3, Disagree) by Phoenix666 on Sunday October 08 2017, @01:45PM (2 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Sunday October 08 2017, @01:45PM (#578873) Journal

        Yes, real scientists never change their models to better describe observed phenomena.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2, Informative) by nekomata on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:22PM

          by nekomata (5432) on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:22PM (#578882)

          Changing the model is fine, but if you do it for ideological reasons it stops being science.

        • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Sunday October 08 2017, @08:02PM

          by unauthorized (3776) on Sunday October 08 2017, @08:02PM (#578950)

          Broadening the definition of something for no good reason does not describe anything better. If I took the word "wood" and decided that now includes all plant flesh because otherwise flowers would feel excluded, that would not be a superior definition in any way. Now all I have is a broad generic term for a certain category of plant matter and no word for real wood. Then again, if I didn't have a proper way to describe intelligence, people can just say "but mah different types of intelligence" whenever intelligence comes up in a political discussion, thus allowing them to beat the conversation to death with a red herring without ever addressing the issue.

          It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of language.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:22AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @02:22AM (#578741)

    The problem with IQ is that we don't actually understand intelligence or the human mind to any significant extent, so to treat it as if it's a measure of someone's intellect is just asinine. Just because it correlates with several things (income, performance in school, etc.) does not mean it is a good measure of intelligence; that has never been proven.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday October 08 2017, @05:51AM (1 child)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Sunday October 08 2017, @05:51AM (#578792) Homepage
    YOLO?
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @07:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 08 2017, @07:29AM (#578811)

      > YOLO?

      Just tried it (local restaurant by that name) this evening. It was OK, but not likely to become a place we go on any regular basis...