| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| "Bad Brains" NFL's Concussion Crisis; lawsuits, players signing off rights, more stats | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 2 2013, 12:17 PM (857 Views) | |
| Luke's Dad | Feb 4 2013, 06:06 AM Post #51 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
What does the time have to do with anything. You made a categorical assumption. Jolly would fall within the category you defined. Whether he said it before or after is irrelevant. Throw all the tomatoes you want. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Horace | Feb 4 2013, 09:54 AM Post #52 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I would be pretty surprised if that matters. These won't be criminal trials and the reasonable doubt thing doesn't apply. As long as there's reasonable certainty that what happened in the NFL contributed to the problem, the NFL is going to pay. |
| As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good? | |
![]() |
|
| Amanda | Feb 4 2013, 07:12 PM Post #53 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
Very true. And by chance the NYTimes just published an article which might have been a continuation of your post! ( "That Daily Shower Can Be a Killer" , below). The catch is that risk:benefit calculations are supposed to promote rational decision-making, whereby we decline certain risks. That is, especially past a certain level of consequence desirability. Here, I guess you are arguing that for you, the value of the desirability is worth risk X - even death. In the original model, though, the whole idea is to attach a value to the outcome, and decide what we're willing to "pay" for - whatever (or to avoid a given consequence). It's NOT supposed to promote gambling - which is contrary to risk:benefit analyses. And some outcomes are supposedly to be declined, because the cost is infinite - i.e., death. Of course, in a way we DO accept gambling, but that's because people behave irrationally. In true risk:benefit figuring, we don't. The classic example my college prof taught us the first day of "Models of Rational Decision Making" , we were to decide whether or not to carry an umbrella despite an uncertain (as they always are) weather forecast. Here's how a rational analysis works. We were taught to assign a value to dryness (adding in factors, like job interviews or new hair do), and a cost to the nuisance of carrying the umbrella (unnecessarily) - multiplying the decision trees by the probability of rain. Say, 50% on each main branch. All well and good. Only in real life, there are those trees involving death. Like taking a plane flight. And as Jolly points out (I think), even every-day tasks can too! (The course got more complicated later on). In the conclusion of this article, the author says he keeps driving and showering. But (interesting example based on New Guinea Society), he aims to keep his risk of death, at under 1/1000. I'm not sure I'd be willing to take a risk where the odds of brain damage (and suicide, etc.) are so much higher - like pro football. Of course, maybe what makes is so tricky psychologically, is that it's a risk of "repetitive concussion syndrome". That makes it sound like a roulette wheel. A player might rationalize that only after a particular collision, would the damage; otherwise, he's home free. Only, it's really an unknown threshold, with (as liquor during pregnancy) no known safe level. The probability with showers works differently. It's more like continuing to flip a coin - there's no cumulative effect. Then too there's the element of control over danger - quite high for showering and driving, non-existent as a passenger in a plane. And what about football? Which is it more like? It appears to me, that there's too much randomness involved. Maybe even negative selection. Mightn't the better players get targeted even more for tackling? For me that spells, UGH. And for my kids all the more so. Besides, the pros play A LOT. That ups the odds, too. Meanwhile, The NYT agrees with Jolly - here, anyhow. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/science/jared-diamonds-guide-to-reducing-lifes-risks.html?gwh=AD6E25D5D717252D6033F04C1661256E Edited by Amanda, Feb 4 2013, 08:07 PM.
|
|
[size=5] We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.[/size] "Daily Telegraph", London July 27 2005 | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









12:37 AM Jul 11