Jack Cheng: http://www.jackcheng.com/the-value-of-certainty-part-1
Paul Carroll
· 7 months ago
Option A without a doubt.
Jack Cheng
· 7 months ago
I just changed "significantly" to "somewhat" in Option B. Same answer?
Paul Carroll
· 7 months ago
I think its that option B seems like you'll eventually get screwed into dealing with A. And then in that situation, option A's wrath would last twice as long.
So yes, option A.
Michael Mistretta
· 7 months ago
I didn't even have to think about it: Option A.
I'd rather live my life knowing what tomorrow holds rather than live it in fear and ambiguity. Cause, after all, what kind of living is that?
Spencer Fry
· 7 months ago
Put a time limit on Option B that expires after 45 days and then lower 6 months with Option A if it's triggered to 4 1/2 months and I'd choose that. I'd also like to know an exact percentage on what "a somewhat increased chance" means. The uncertainty is what kills it for me.
If not, Option A then.
Jack Cheng
· 7 months ago
You sure you're not still daytrading? ;)
Re: "a somewhat increased chance" -- it's intentionally vague.
Spencer Fry
· 7 months ago
Haha! Nope. But numbers and percentages are key. :)
Spencer Fry
· 7 months ago
Vagueness scares me.
Although, I read once in some psychological study that entrepreneurs are less likely to see risk. Most people think that entrepreneurs are risk takers, but in fact entrepreneurs simply don't know that there's any risk involved with what they're doing... to an extent. So it's perceived as risk from an outside perspective only.
sasq
· 6 months ago
QUESTION! What bear is best?
...dude, why the percentages..option A or B
btw jack cheng, i say option a, because when you're done with the curse, food will taste so much better
Gabriel
· 7 months ago
Option B and I will eat only cookies and food that I make my self in the next months
Philip Morton
· 7 months ago
Interesting question. Option A is all about certainty and fact, while Option B is all about uncertainty and chance. Without knowing what exact chances Option B presents, I'd probably go with Option A.
Magnetic Mary
· 7 months ago
I would just leave. Maybe my unlucky day would only start the minute I believed what he says. I mean, why should I give any credit to his words? And if I do get food poisoned, why would his cure be the only possible cure?
Or MUST I choose? ;-) Option B follows, then.
Marc
· 7 months ago
Option A. It might even be a blessing. Since everything you eat will taste the same (e.g. awful), it doesn't matter anymore what you eat so you'll only eat the most healthy food. Then, after three months, all that healthy food will taste very good compared with the previous months.
---
What I find interesting about Option B is that you say "He does nothing." which makes me think your next post (Part 2) is about the real world where option B is the default for most people and option A just means eating healthier. Then you will ask why most people will choose option A in this little story but option B in the real world. Am I right? :)
valerie hope
· 7 months ago
Option A, I'd rather deal with this now then live in uncertainty following me.
kevin
· 7 months ago
I was about to choose B because it's only a "somewhat increased chance" of contracting food poisoning, which didn't sound bad. But then at the end it says "six months, possibly longer" which is too open-ended so I guess I'd have to pick A.
Michael
· 7 months ago
I would choose option B for many reasons.
1) I don't want to eat my least favorite food every single day for next three months. That's kind of stupid. It's kind of like prepping yourself to go to jail for no reason. Why would anyone want to choose that option out of free will?
2) I like taking risks so I would stick with option B. There are many ways to control the outcome where it's favorable to you. Eat once a day thus limiting the probability of getting food poisoning. Staying away from food that have high cases of food poisoning -- chicken, sushi, etc.
This post reminded me of game theory and prisoner's dilemma and even the game "chicken" (driving head-on towards each other). All of these theories are based on what the OTHER person does.
Your situation is based on what I want to do - the basic elements on free will. Without the uncertainity of the future, what's the point of living life?
Johanna
· 7 months ago
Oh god, option A. Two reasons.
1. There are very few foods I dislike. So this might be cheating. But my least favorite food (lamb) CAN make me feel somewhat sick sometimes.
2. I have a huge phobia of food poisoning; it actually affects my daily life sometimes. There are certain foods that I don't eat anymore, unless I make them myself. If I am unsure of something I do eat, I have slight anxiety until it's at least 8 hours past the time of eating it (meaning – in my mind – that I'm in the clear). Also, if I feel unreasonably not-hungry 5-7 hours after I eat something, I get really paranoid that food poisoning is on the way.
Erik
· 7 months ago
If I roll a 20 do I make a saving throw against it?
mrshawnliu
· 7 months ago
A "figure"? You can see the "lower half of his face"? "He casts a spell"!?
I would call the cops, man.
john
· 6 months ago
LMAO!
Zach Hale
· 7 months ago
I would definitely choose option A. Very likely my body would get used to the taste of my previously least favorite food. And it would give me an easy reason to eat well and diet without temptation.
My life could go on much the same with option A. With option B, I'd risk time and health complications that would not be worth it.
Tommy Yoo
· 7 months ago
Option A.
The parts of Option B that scare me are: - a somewhat increased chance of contracting food poisoning: I read that as - "you will, at some time in the future, contract food poisoning" - there is no time limit to that "somewhat increased chance" - Option A as the cure would require six months, or more, possibly: that is a big open end, meaning you could potentially be tasting the least favorite food forever
Option A, although with its negative effects a certainty, mean that there is ultimately an end to it. Option B gives you all the risk in the world. You may get food poisoning with Option A, but you will not be punished for it.
Karthi
· 7 months ago
Option B. I would like to cross the bridge when it comes.
Ryan S
· 7 months ago
A, because it sounds like you're screwed either way. Plus, if food all taste the same, you can focus on eating a good diet, rather than nachos and beer.
Jeff
· 7 months ago
Option A.
The unpleasantness with option A is just that: unpleasant. The risk of food poisoning is much more than that, considering all the different food-borne illnesses available. So for me, the choice is mild discomfort versus potential death.
Mild discomfort, please.
guy1320
· 7 months ago
Option A fo sho. It's a known evil and I could stand to loose some elbees.
jroos1
· 6 months ago
I'd go with A. I figure I've had food poisoning maybe 7-10 times in my life (approx. 1 time every 2-3 years). Based on those numbers, it seems very likely that I will definitely get food poisoning at least once more in my life (I am planning on living more than just a couple more years being that I'm just 23). Plus, throw in the fact that I have been experimenting more with my food choices which would only increase my chances of getting sick. So the way I'm looking at it I am definitely going to get food poisoning, its just a matter of time. So I might as well get it out of the way now when I know about it and can be prepared to deal with it. I would also avoid the time of 6 months or possibly more of being sick if I choose option B.
If I chose B, I'd have to deal with the bad taste longer. Plus, with the uncertainty of getting food poisoning, it would probably affect my normal everyday food choices dramatically. In order to avoid the potential negative effects of B, I'd probably severely limit what I ate and always be too cautious, trying to avoid the worst possible outcome (kinda like that one point in Final Destination where the main guy goes to the cabin and tries to eliminate all ways he could possibly die, I know it's a lame reference but the only one I could think of). The effects of the fear of the unknown are probably reason enough to go ahead and just get it right away and then live the rest of your life happy after that.
John Kooz
· 6 months ago
I'd Choose Option Zero: Travle back in time. MYOB and STOP DETOURING ON THE WAY TO WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D lol. Funny, but I'm serious. I've "wandered down the path not taken" to refernce Mr. Frost, and it gets REALLY old and boring after awhile. I like the mind my own business, do my own work, stop detouring into odd buildings where people cast spells on you :D LOL! Nose to the Grindstone.
john
· 6 months ago
That said, if I HAD to choose one of the situations. I'd unquestionably UNQUESTIONABLY do Option A. Better to Suffer 3 months flat done, Gone. Than to risk gustatorially suffering 2x that. Plus with option B, you have the risk of constant doom of catching the spell everytime you eat, that uncertainty would be possibly worse than the flavor of the gross taste.
Brent Dixon
· 6 months ago
I'm going to let my naive optimism get the best of me and choose option b. If it goes right, I'll forget about the whole unpleasant thing. If it goes wrong, I'll have learned a thing, and six months later food will taste better than it ever has in my whole life.
All Comments
So yes, option A.
I'd rather live my life knowing what tomorrow holds rather than live it in fear and ambiguity. Cause, after all, what kind of living is that?
If not, Option A then.
Re: "a somewhat increased chance" -- it's intentionally vague.
Although, I read once in some psychological study that entrepreneurs are less likely to see risk. Most people think that entrepreneurs are risk takers, but in fact entrepreneurs simply don't know that there's any risk involved with what they're doing... to an extent. So it's perceived as risk from an outside perspective only.
What bear is best?
...dude, why the percentages..option A or B
btw jack cheng, i say option a, because when you're done with the curse, food will taste so much better
Or MUST I choose? ;-) Option B follows, then.
---
What I find interesting about Option B is that you say "He does nothing." which makes me think your next post (Part 2) is about the real world where option B is the default for most people and option A just means eating healthier. Then you will ask why most people will choose option A in this little story but option B in the real world. Am I right? :)
1) I don't want to eat my least favorite food every single day for next three months. That's kind of stupid. It's kind of like prepping yourself to go to jail for no reason. Why would anyone want to choose that option out of free will?
2) I like taking risks so I would stick with option B. There are many ways to control the outcome where it's favorable to you. Eat once a day thus limiting the probability of getting food poisoning. Staying away from food that have high cases of food poisoning -- chicken, sushi, etc.
This post reminded me of game theory and prisoner's dilemma and even the game "chicken" (driving head-on towards each other). All of these theories are based on what the OTHER person does.
Your situation is based on what I want to do - the basic elements on free will. Without the uncertainity of the future, what's the point of living life?
1. There are very few foods I dislike. So this might be cheating. But my least favorite food (lamb) CAN make me feel somewhat sick sometimes.
2. I have a huge phobia of food poisoning; it actually affects my daily life sometimes. There are certain foods that I don't eat anymore, unless I make them myself. If I am unsure of something I do eat, I have slight anxiety until it's at least 8 hours past the time of eating it (meaning – in my mind – that I'm in the clear). Also, if I feel unreasonably not-hungry 5-7 hours after I eat something, I get really paranoid that food poisoning is on the way.
I would call the cops, man.
My life could go on much the same with option A. With option B, I'd risk time and health complications that would not be worth it.
The parts of Option B that scare me are:
- a somewhat increased chance of contracting food poisoning: I read that as - "you will, at some time in the future, contract food poisoning"
- there is no time limit to that "somewhat increased chance"
- Option A as the cure would require six months, or more, possibly: that is a big open end, meaning you could potentially be tasting the least favorite food forever
Option A, although with its negative effects a certainty, mean that there is ultimately an end to it. Option B gives you all the risk in the world. You may get food poisoning with Option A, but you will not be punished for it.
The unpleasantness with option A is just that: unpleasant. The risk of food poisoning is much more than that, considering all the different food-borne illnesses available. So for me, the choice is mild discomfort versus potential death.
Mild discomfort, please.
If I chose B, I'd have to deal with the bad taste longer. Plus, with the uncertainty of getting food poisoning, it would probably affect my normal everyday food choices dramatically. In order to avoid the potential negative effects of B, I'd probably severely limit what I ate and always be too cautious, trying to avoid the worst possible outcome (kinda like that one point in Final Destination where the main guy goes to the cabin and tries to eliminate all ways he could possibly die, I know it's a lame reference but the only one I could think of). The effects of the fear of the unknown are probably reason enough to go ahead and just get it right away and then live the rest of your life happy after that.