Rich get richer as economy gets better; everyone else is worse off

[Malthus]

Let me get this straight: if I drink and drive and get into an accident because of that, this is "not a predictable result" according to you?

Well I suppose that depends on how one looks at it. I mean isn't the likelihood of a car accident actually pretty low? And then let's say drunk driving increase that risk by 10-fold - isn't it still pretty unlikely that you'll get in a car accident?

You are fighting the hypothetical again.

Read carefully: if I drink and drive and get into an accident because of that, this is "not a predictable result" according to you?

Sure but that's after the fact. It's probably fair to say that the drinking contributed to your accident but that's little to do with prediction about whether on any given day you have an accident while drunk.  After all, if the odds are in favor of not having an accident whether you are drunk or sober, then net-net it is most likely the case that you won't have one.

I think you are missing how I'm using the word "predictable", despite numerous explainations and examples. 

[fhdz]

As you say though, the issue with driving drunk isn't that it is predictable you will have a fatal accident but more the advantage of driving drunk vs. the terrible consequences that can result (death, injury, jail time, etc.).

The house analogy is a better one in terms of "investment", in that there is at least a potential for serious gain mixed in with the potential for catastrophic loss.

Still, being exposed to catastrophic loss isn't a terribly fun place to be in. I know I'd feel a hell of a lot more comfortable if my investment in my house amounted to 10-20% of my total assets rather than 99% of them.

[garbon]

I think you are missing how I'm using the word "predictable", despite numerous explainations and examples. 

I think that might be because they way you are using predictable doesn't seem predictable at all - given that the odds were still against the "predictable" result happening.

[DGuller]

Let me get this straight: if I drink and drive and get into an accident because of that, this is "not a predictable result" according to you?

It's not a predictable result at all.  I'm in the business of predicting the future, not predicting the past, and doing it in an unbiased way.  If we were to take even money bets on the drunk driver before he drives off, I would bet on him getting home without getting into an accident.

On the other hand, if the bet involved two drivers, one sober and one drunk, and you win the bet if the guy you bet on crashes before the other, then obviously I would put my money on the drunk.  Him getting into an accident before the sober guy gets into an accident would be an entirely predictable result.

I can understand why your perspective is skewed.  Lawyers aren't typically involved when the drunk driver gets home safely, an old lady navigates the sidewalk without tripping and falling on it, or some company invents something new without infringing on a patent.  Therefore, when do you get involved, you have to predict retroactively. 

My best guess is that when lawyers say "predictable", they mean "the reasonable person must've been aware that they acted in a way that increased the risk of the event happening".  Even then, though, your original use of "predictable" wouldn't fit under that definition, since not diversifying doesn't increase your risk of getting lower returns compared to a diversified portfolio.

[Malthus]

Yes, but the associated possibilities of getting in a car accident are nonlinear in scope - you could have a minor fenderbender at best but you also could be facing manslaughter charges, the loss of your job, etc etc etc. Furthermore you can't know what "loss" you will face until you are faced with it.

You *can*, however, know how *exposed* you are to various risks. "If I drive drunk, how exposed am I to gain and, conversely, to catastrophic loss? I must conclude that driving drunk is a sucker bet. The upside is very limited and the downside is potentially ruinous."

Certainly, I'm not trying to argue that you should drink and drive - just that saying its predictable you will get into an accident is odd to say because it isn't.

I did actually look up fatal car accidents and it looks like those are uncommon and you are 7 times more likely to have one if you have a BAC of .10.

As you say though, the issue with driving drunk isn't that it is predictable you will have a fatal accident but more the advantage of driving drunk vs. the terrible consequences that can result (death, injury, jail time, etc.).

I point out your error and you are going right back to doing the same thing. 

I'm not saying that if you drive drunk, you will have an accident.

I'm saying that having an accident is an entirely foreseeable bad-case result of drinking and driving. The reason? Drinking and driving, as everyone knows, increases your risks.

Note again that "foreseeable", like "predictable", does not mean "inevitable" and need not even mean "very likely". It does not mean that one "predicts" exactly what will transpire. 

Sheesh.

[fhdz]

not diversifying doesn't increase your risk of getting lower returns compared to a diversified portfolio.

It increases the risk that those lower returns will be catastrophic.

[garbon]

I point out your error and you are going right back to doing the same thing. 

I'm not saying that if you drive drunk, you will have an accident.

I'm saying that having an accident is an entirely foreseeable bad-case result of drinking and driving. The reason? Drinking and driving, as everyone knows, increases your risks.

Note again that "foreseeable", like "predictable", does not mean "inevitable" and need not even mean "very likely". It does not mean that one "predicts" exactly what will transpire. 

Sheesh.

Sure but only slightly more foreseeable than having an accident when not drunk. Certainly not an increase in magnitudes that you should see it isn't foreseeable to have an accident while driving sober but it is foreseeable to have an accident while driving drunk.

The increase in risk is pretty small, it's just that the end result can be so bad that you don't want to increase you risks at all.

[DGuller]

I think you are missing how I'm using the word "predictable", despite numerous explainations and examples. 

You are using "predictable" in a way that involves no prediction at all.

[garbon]

My best guess is that when lawyers say "predictable", they mean "the reasonable person must've been aware that they acted in a way that increased the risk of the event happening".  Even then, though, your original use of "predictable" wouldn't fit under that definition, since not diversifying doesn't increase your risk of getting lower returns compared to a diversified portfolio.

That seems pretty fair.

[Malthus]

Let me get this straight: if I drink and drive and get into an accident because of that, this is "not a predictable result" according to you?

It's not a predictable result at all.  I'm in the business of predicting the future, not predicting the past, and doing it in an unbiased way.  If we were to take even money bets on the drunk driver before he drives off, I would bet on him getting home without getting into an accident.

On the other hand, if the bet involved two drivers, one sober and one drunk, and you win the bet if the guy you bet on crashes before the other, then obviously I would put my money on the drunk.  Him getting into an accident before the sober guy gets into an accident would be an entirely predictable result.

I can understand why your perspective is skewed.  Lawyers aren't typically involved when the drunk driver gets home safely, an old lady navigates the sidewalk without tripping and falling on it, or some company invents something new without infringing on a patent.  Therefore, when do you get involved, you have to predict retroactively. 

My best guess is that when lawyers say "predictable", they mean "the reasonable person must've been aware that they acted in a way that increased the risk of the event happening".  Even then, though, your original use of "predictable" wouldn't fit under that definition, since not diversifying doesn't increase your risk of getting lower returns compared to a diversified portfolio.

Perhaps consulting a dictionary would help with you two. 

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/predictable

1 if something is predictable, it happens in the way that you would expect
Most of the films we've reviewed this summer have had one thing in common – predictable plots.

Are you seriously claiming that the word "predictable" can't mean this? That it must mean "accurately foretelling the future"? In spite of me, fahdiz, and everyone except Garbon telling you repeatedly ... ?

[garbon]

Perhaps consulting a dictionary would help with you two. 

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/predictable

1 if something is predictable, it happens in the way that you would expect
Most of the films we've reviewed this summer have had one thing in common – predictable plots.

Are you seriously claiming that the word "predictable" can't mean this? That it must mean "accurately foretelling the future"? In spite of me, fahdiz, and everyone except Garbon telling you repeatedly ... ?

I don't know why you'd expect a drunk driver to have an accident. The odds clearly show that the expected result of drunk driving is that you get home safely.

[Maximus]

I'm not sure how this discussion got into the courtroom, and what these non sequiturs have to do with anything. 

Your job is assessing risk. Malthus's job is dragging everything into a courtroom.

[fhdz]

The increase in risk is pretty small, it's just that the end result can be so bad that you don't want to increase you risks at all.

Yes, I think that dovetails well with the notion I've been talking about regarding managing your exposure to risks rather than attempting to predict the likelihood of a particular risk occuring.

"If something goes wrong, how screwed am I? And how great is the offsetting gain?" If the potential gain is good and the potential loss is minimal, you're in an ideal place - even though you may not be seeing your portfolio skyrocket.

[Malthus]

I think you are missing how I'm using the word "predictable", despite numerous explainations and examples. 

You are using "predictable" in a way that involves no prediction at all.

You are insisting I'm using a word in a particular way, when I've said many times I'm not, when it is obvious from the first I was not, and when that way doesn't make any sense in context, and when it isn't even the primary meaning of the word - and then claiming that, somehow, this is my mistake.   

Again, consult a dictionary. This has nothing to do with some special super-secret "lawyer's definition".

[Malthus]

I don't know why you'd expect a drunk driver to have an accident. The odds clearly show that the expected result of drunk driving is that you get home safely.

I don't "expect a drunk driver to have an accident".