SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
In a Twitter discussion on Sept. 5, Rosa-Maria Ryyti (Miss Universe Finland 2015 winner), argued Bitcoin's risk factor made it more appealing to men.
She was responding to a query by analyst and Cointelegraph contributor, Filb Filb, who asked followers why the Bitcoin community was overwhelmingly male.
"Women are more risk-conscious in general and often go for a 'slow & steady' investment strategy," Ryyti wrote, adding:
"The current general perception of Bitcoin in the msm makes it even less probable for the average women (and men) to get involved."
https://cointelegraph.com/news/miss-finland-bitcoins-risk-keeps-most-women-away-from-cryptocurrency
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Bitcoin’s Risk Keeps Most Women Away From Cryptocurrency
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 39 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday September 07 2019, @06:02PM (17 children)
In a Twitter discussion on Sept. 5, Rosa-Maria Ryyti (Miss Universe Finland 2015 winner), argued Bitcoin's risk factor made it more appealing to men.
Miss Ryyti just confirmed that:
1/ Women are more sensible than men
2/ Finland can produce Miss Somethings that aren't dumb bimbos
3/ Albeit rare, it's possible to read intelligent things on Twitter
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07 2019, @06:16PM
0/ she says what she's paid to say
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 07 2019, @07:14PM
She did say average men weren't into cryptocoin either. In other words, it is something for Aspies to get wet over.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday September 07 2019, @08:08PM (14 children)
That "sensible" is a bit dubious. Sometimes the risk is worth it to the one taking the risk, because the payoff can be large enough to counter the risk. So "sensible" is a statement about one's relative values.
OTOH, I've never understood why ANY statistics major would buy a lottery ticket. It has to have something to do with "marginal valuation", e.g. the reward you get for dreaming about how much better things would be if you won.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 07 2019, @08:12PM (9 children)
Nothing wrong with your statement. But, in context, women have always been more risk averse than men. That's why we do crazy things like riding motorcycles like madmen, and trying to take corners on two wheels when driving the family car. The difference in male and female auto insurance rates reflects that risk aversion.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by legont on Sunday September 08 2019, @02:13AM (8 children)
If true, women should be paid less for the same job.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:54AM (7 children)
I disagree. Employees who take risks with the boss's assets are of less value than employees who protect the boss's assets.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by lentilla on Sunday September 08 2019, @12:58PM (4 children)
Made me think of the Parable of the Talents [wikipedia.org]. Short version: the boss returns home and rewards the risk takers and punishes the guy who played it safe. (I have always wanted to know what would have happened to an employee who took a risk but ultimately lost.)
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 08 2019, @01:38PM
I have wondered the same. I suppose the moral of the story is, you have to risk it all while blindly trusting in God. If you lost all your money in risky investments, then you had to be listening to the devil. :^)
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @02:50PM (1 child)
The boss would have smote him, because a Jew is supposed to make money, not lose it.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:22PM
No, that would be sinful. The boss should have sent him on a quest to collect 100 philistine foreskins in the hopes he would be smote by someone else in the process.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday September 08 2019, @04:06PM
Yes, this is exactly the underlying problem. Our society rewards the result without much considerations of the risk taken. This screws a lot. Women underpayment is just a relatively minor example. Some scientists working on the bomb believed it may ignite the whole earth, but the bomb was tested. Some guys create black holes using particle smasher and say nothing could go wrong.
Perhaps we do need to push it and take those risks because if we stop for a moment, Chinese will enslave us, or aliens with higher tech come and kill us all. Or a rock. Or a supernova. If this is the case, we should accept it and reward men taking risk. If not, we should go the current way wich is removing the risk from our lives for the price of faster progress.
Men vs women discourse is a strategy decision about risk. We got to realize it.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:54PM (1 child)
If this is true, the original statement means that women are smarter than men - able to get the same done with less risk - and should be paid more for the same job than men.
I don't take sides with either statement, mind you. What I was trying to say that a politically acceptable statement "women are more risk averse" is a different way of phrasing a politically questionable statements such as women are smarter or not.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @09:55AM
I pay for results, not for anything else.
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Sunday September 08 2019, @12:33AM (1 child)
"I've never understood why ANY statistics major would buy a lottery ticket"
Well, maybe it's because life is only so good at rewarding perspicacity. Consider walking up to a guy who won $10,000,000 on a one-dollar Lotto ticket and saying "Well, aren't we a dimwit?"
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday September 08 2019, @05:38PM
Assuming one means a general concept of the lottery, I can come up with a few explanations.
For example, one could believe that there are no true random games around. All the games are rigged by players.
One could have a religious belief that luck is a way God uses to support good people. This approach is very popular in Asia.
Finally, one could assume that any randomness is an illusion and simply represents a lack of knowledge that mentioned graduate believes to possess.
Trust in pure statistics is a sign of an amateur statistician; perhaps a fresh grad without real life experience.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 08 2019, @03:43AM
Because you won't miss the dollar, but it gives you the chance to win a billion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 09 2019, @06:22PM
For a statistics major (which I ain't, but I think I understand the theory of this)...
If the reward odds go over the odds of winning this is considered a solid bet. The odds of winning the PowerBall jackpot are 1:292,201,338 according to Wikipedia. Ignoring the investment of multiple times (i.e. playing once only), that the odds are much lower for winning any prize whatsoever (1:24.87), the possibility of the jackpot being split, and assuming one takes the annuity instead of cash payments then anytime the jackpot goes over $292,201,338 you are receiving more money than the odds of winning.
Much of the theory of elementary Poker betting revolves around this principle, at least for solid (i.e. not bluffing) play. If your odds of improving your hand are better than the bet you're having to make to the pot ratio, it makes sense for you to bet. It is an extremely simplified version of pot odds [wikipedia.org] are, assuming one knows one does not have the nuts in a hand. (OK, pot odds can get more complex than that. But if you're being asked to thow in $1 to a win of $10.00, and your odds of completing a straight and that's your only improvement are 1 in 12, that's a bad bet. If you're throwing in $2 to a pot of $48 you could raise to $3 safely and still be good. If you expect the pot to reach $120 by final card you can invest $12 in the hand safely if the odds stayed constant - which they don't in Hold 'Em.)3
It all comes down to a simple theory: Is your potential payout to your investment greater or less than the odds of your achieving that payout? If payout is greater than odd of getting it, bet. If not, don't.
Will you still win the PowerBall? Only in 1 time of 292 Million. But, win or lose, your bets then weren't pure luck.