/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14772037
What is the logical reason for your starting this inane thread? Protip: I will run your proof through an automated theorem checker and if it doesn't check out, you're an emotional, feminine tranny LARPing as a rational intellectual.

>>14772037
What do I get if I chose the green button and didnt win the $50 million?

>>14772046
You get to enjoy the comfort of knowing that you are highly rational and intellectual like the cattle-brained NPC who started this thread.

What is the mathematically optimal solution here?

>>14772037
NPCs are bad at mathematical reasoning (you could probably find NPCs with $5m to their name who would press the red button), but it isn't objective if you can only run it once since you don't get to realize your equity. consider utility, risk of ruin, bankroll management etc.

>>14772058
You're the NPC here. The quesiton isn't asking anything objective in the first place.

>>14772037
>there exists a mathematically objective solution
There is none.
Rational expected value is only a thing when you retry the experiment several times over.
This is purely "would you feel worse winning 1 million but knowing you missed out on 50 million or winning 0$ but knowing you missed out on 1 million$". For most people the 1 million would be better but if you're rich enough 1 million is spare change the 50 million looks more attractive, although anyone that got rich would likely value every penny and not risk the opportunity of losing 1 million whereas anyone that was born rich and not educated properly would pick the 50 million.

Honestly though those who pick the 50 million are the type to fail at life, relying on luck is the same as saying you're worthless, a real smart guy would figure out how to make 50 million from the 1 million.

>>14772068
I agree with this except the last part. You are luckier than you think.

>>14772037
Unironically would press the red button. My current balance to one million is a much smaller step than one million to 50M. Also, with green you risk a lifetime of remorse. I could live better with the red button than with the green button and bad luck.

To all highschoolers who think they figured it out because 50/2 > 1, rationality doesn't just depend on expectation values.

>>14772037
I would absolutely press the red button. Because a bird in the hand is better than a hundred in the bush.
Nassim Taleb has created a theoretical model to justify such decisions if you feel like common sense isn't enough of a good explanation.
The problem you present isnt a mathematics problem either way. Choosing any button makes sense depending on your personal goals.

>>14772132
>rationality doesn't just depend on expectation values.
It probably does. The problem is that the expected value in terms of dollars, in the narrow context of this problem, tells you nothing about what's rational to do in the broader context of optimizing expected value in the broader context of a real life and real values.

>>14772037
your "logical answer" serves nothing more than masturbating yourself. from a human aspect both are tickets out of poverty but one is guaranteed the other isn't. more money=/=more happy

This is that bells curve with the same opinion on the ends and the average retard in the middle thinking he should hit the green button, not realizing expected values only matter when you're going to be doing the same thing multiple times.

Press the red. You have a guaranteed chance of a nice monetary reward and that cannot fail. You're not going to regret not being greedy and pressing the green, but if you press the green and don't get the 50 mil you will forever regret not pressing the guaranteed 1mil. I consider it to be the best possible play primarily because it cannot go wrong.

>>14772132
It's really dumb to press green unless you were born into the top 0.1%, red with compound interest opens countless possibilities in life.

>>14772037
The impact of a dollar on your quality of life will diminish the more of them you have already, so the first one million can easily be worth more than the subsequent 49.

>>14772037
"Subjective feelings," as OP puts it, is a thought process independent of the rational mind that often time can be both logical and correct.
The problem is western society writ large doesn't value this part of the mind and instead focuses ALL public education and training exclusively on the purely logical side of the mind. This leads to errors to occur in the logical of the logical mind that never get corrected for the lifetime of the individual. These errors can persist, and even grow and build on themselves leading to wildly inaccurate conclusions, but this is no different than doing science with bad facts and never checking those facts. IMO this is no different then the term PEBKAC. Problem exists between keyboard and computer, except in this case it'd be more accurate to say something to the effect of problem exists between physical brain and the soul, and this is quintessentially why western society can't acknowledge the problem they have. They've relegated the soul to the domain of religion, and religion is deeply rooted in upholding tradition and that means not changing/growing.

>>14772055
The answer itself is subjective, or based on the person pressing the button. Green should only be pressed if a person can afford to lose $1million.

>>14772175
>from a human aspect both are tickets out of poverty but one is guaranteed the other isn't. more money=/=more happy
From a human aspect, pressing the red button is almost guaranteed misery while the green means either nothing changes or all your problems are solved.

>>14772055
Depends on the utility function. OP just assumes that U(25 million) > U(1 million)

>>14772224
>pressing the red button is almost guaranteed misery
Why would a million dollars make you miserable but 50 million not?

>>14772037
People are risk averse and risk management isn't illogical. If you're so risk averse that you'd give up 49 million for insurance then that's your business.

>>14772231
Because a million is just enough to LARP as upper class for a short time while getting yourself into a world of shit, while 50 is enough to spend the rest of your life living comfortably.

>>14772232
I feel a large part of why people are more risk averse regarding this thought experiment is because it is a fixed 50% chance of that or nothing at all. It's unlike most risk where you can try to mitigate and manipulate your risk through careful and clever planning, this risk is completely beyond your control and will always take everything if it happens. So naturally the risk is much heavier than the risks people typically face in day to day life.

>>14772037
This is literally the best argument for socialism. That is, it's a case where it's better to reason on average of outcomes if this is spread among enough experiments. Meanwhile, no sane person would press the green button as an individual.

>>14772037
So I'm actually familial with the Math that says green is better.

The problem? It doesn't really apply to many people.

There's no law of large numbers to guarantee you win in the long run with this approach since you have 1 shot.

Since 1 million is such a large sum relative to most peoples current wealth and they only get 1 shot you should probably always take red. It doesn't benefit you that much more if you're student poorfag that you stand to gain 50 times as much money when it's not guaranteed since you have such a large chance to lose it for many getting 1 million would multiply their wealth.

If you're Bill Gates this does not apply.

You could consider this an applied example of the Kelly criterion and most people do not have the money to waste 1 million dollars on a 50% chance to turn it into 50 million.

I'm not gonna write it out for you in formula.

>>14772238
Not everyone aspires to an upper class lifestyle. Lots of people would be perfectly content with a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, and a million dollars well managed can provide that.

>>14772245
A million dollars gives you nothing.

>>14772248
A million dollars is enough to buy a house, a car, and have enough left over to invest. How is that nothing? Are you Jeff Bezos or something?

>>14772238
Short time? Dude you could just live forever on profits from investing 1 million dollars. Just buy and rent farmland and get $30.000 in year rents. Enough to live somewhere cheap.
People want safety. Wealth is just a desire to ensure safety but often it backfires like when some greedy dictator with trilions gets rekt by someone he fucked over

>>14772252
>A million dollars is enough to buy a house
In a place where no one really wants to live.

>>14772257
Alright, kiddie.

>>14772248
A million dollars right now pretty much insures I retire in peace and luxury, freeing a lot of time and money to do other things.

>>14772258
You really must be Jeff Bezos, because if you're ruling out any house worth less than a million dollars as being somewhere "no one really wants to live" you are completely out of touch with 99% of the population.

>>14772264
>this is what poorfags actually believe
Do you live in India or something?

>>14772266
Show me where you can buy a decent house or apartment for a million or less.
>inb4 flyover state in Burgerland
>inb4 other third world countries
>inb4 eastern europe

>>14772248
50 million dollars gives you nothing as well because money is not true wealth. Wealth can only be acquired from money when you lose said money, and yet you can still acquire wealth without money. Ultimately money is nothing. Try to stop for a minute and think about what TRUE wealth is, independent of any numerical denomination you might try to assign to it. After you know what true wealth is, try and think about how much money you'd need to acquire it and/or if it'd be easier to acquire by means that are not monetary.

>>14772222
check'n quads

>>14772037
People who are sure of pressing green are falsely assuming that each additional dollar is of equal utility. Do you think that someone with 100 billion dollars is 100 thousand times happier than someone with 1 million?

>>14772055
It's utility of random variable vs utility of constant. Utility functions are concave in practice (poor people have more use for $1 than rich people and the richer you are the less utility an extra $1 gives you), so Jensen's inequality says smaller certain payouts are preferred to bigger random payouts up to a point. This critical point depends on the concavity of your utility function (i.e. risk aversion).

>>14772267
A billion people live in India. How is their opinion not important? Most people are poor
Almost no one would reject 1 million dollar over the chance of 50 or even over a chance of 1 trillion dollars. I would press the red even if the amount was reduced to $100.000

>>14772273
>50 million dollars gives you nothing as well because money is not true wealth.
Ok, retard.

>>14772278
>t no one would reject 1 million dollar over the chance of 50 or even over a chance of 1 trillion dollars
Maybe, but most people in the world are third worlders, actual retards or (probably) both, so that's not saying much.

>>14772271
So a lot of places? What are you even saying?
>show me where to buy cheap
>lists a bunch of cheap places
Hello?

>>14772271
No I refuse to do that, because you're just going to pull some reason out of your ass for why "nobody would want to live there" anyways. You already disqualified all flyover states, which have a lot of great communities I'd love to live in. And anything that isn't America you're going to call a third world country and disqualify on those grounds. You're basically just unwilling to accept anything that isn't central NY or LA, but I'd rather shoot myself than live in those hellholes anyways.

>>14772283
Notice how you are unable to satisfy my fair and simple criteria of not living in a shithole.

>>14772248
KEK
Why are the most clueless people the ones who are always so sure of themselves?
Warren Buffett himself said the first 100k are the hardest to get. Once you have 100k in your bank, your life changes.
Now who should I trust, one of the most consistent investors, a legend, or a retarded idiot on 4chan?

>>14772271
>WAAAAH I CANT LIVE IN BEVERLY HILLS ITS FUCKING OVER
/biz/ tourists are the worst

>>14772285
>you're just going to pull some reason out of your ass for why "nobody would want to live there" anyways
I promise you I won't.

>anything that isn't America you're going to call a third world country and disqualify on those grounds
I wouldn't. I actually disqualify the uS as a whole for being a disgusting third world shithole where only an utter degenerate would want to live.

>>14772055
You will acquire $1M in your lifetime. It won't be much money by then. You will probably acquire >$10M in your lifetime, but you will need that much money just to build a (likely smaller) nest egg with which to retire. $50M, though, that depends on inflation and wage growth.
It depends on your utility function. If the goal is to maximize money, and if money is not useful, then the EV of the $50M button is $25M, and the EV of the other button is $1M. $25M>$1M, so the answer is obvious.
If your utility function does not care for money, then the buttons should be ignored and you will continue upon your obscure quest which somehow lacks instrumental goals. If your utility function requires that you become a singleton, and if that action costs with $1M, you should hit that $1M button (EV = 100%). If your utility function requires you become a cattle rancher, then the problem becomes complicated as $1M is not enough, yet, $1M would be a much better starting point to reaching the goal than $0. Likewise, $50M may also not be sufficient for your function.
Given this, it is easy to see that a rational&logical being may choose either button if it had need of >$50M.
>>14772204
This is a good take, but it ignores that $1M is something everyone under age 40 with a job will naturally acquire with minimal effort.

>>14772282
And? What is your point? Most people are poor. Rich people would choose the green button for obvious reason.

>>14772288
>Warren Buffett himself said the first 100k are the hardest to get. Once you have 100k in your bank, your life changes.
That may be true, you mouth-breathing imbecile. Now reflect on the difference between the context of Buffet's statement and the one of some normie retard getting $1m for free.

>>14772295
Dude
You're actually and I meant it unironically, retarded

>>14772286
No one cares about your criteria. Go fuck yourself

>>14772297
Don't even @ me you idiot

>>14772296
>What is your point?
That if you're the average normie living in a first world country you would be better off trying to for 50M. 1M is only going to make your life worse.

>>14772302
You've been exposed as a brainlet and now you're shitting and pissing yourself with rage. :^)

>>14772292
See>>14772301
Your criteria are bullshit and arbitrary, and I'm not going to waste my time.

>>14772303
Is this cope for wanting but not having a million?
>A-ackshually i never wanted a million
Sour
Fucking
Grapes

>>14772307
I accept your full and direct concession, mouth-breathing American retard. Why would anyone besides Mexican illegals wnat to live in your failed state?

>>14772037
the green button is only the rational choice if the marginal utility of 50M is >2x the 1M.
It's definitely not 50x
if you have no money, then the difference between getting 50M isn't going to be that different from getting 1M

>>14772309
I could use an extra million. A normie mouth breather like you, on the other hand, will inevitably use it to make his life worse. This happens on a regular basis: retards get moderate amounts of money they didn't earn and end up worse off.

>>14772313
I don't even live in the US, I just recognize your bullshit for what it is.

>>14772328
>I don't even live in the US
Where do you live? Let's see how much an apartment costs in a reasonable area in your country, assuming you live in the first world (which I now doubt).

>>14772316
Pretty much
But /v/ and /biz/ tourists have no idea of actual business economics. They think they're hot shit for trading some shitcoin on a serious looking terminal and larp like they're on a Bloomberg terminal.
Case in points that guy itt

>>14772271
literaly every single US state has good houses under 250k
get out of your disgusting megacities, midwit

>>14772332
>every single US state
I said no failed third-world banana republics.

Red button. If you click that, you get a million. If you click green you will get nothing. And then the developer will just lie and tell you 'sorry m8'.

>>14772037
The right answer is red. It's not about mathematics being wrong. Expected value isn't expected utility.
Expected Value:
1 * 1,000,000 = 1,000,000
.5 * 50,000,000 = 25,000,000
Expected Utility:
1 * ln(1,000,000) = 13.82
.5 * ln(50,000,000) = 8.87
This kind of problem with naive expected value has been known since Bernoulli published Commentaries of the Imperial Academy of Science of Saint Petersburg in 1738.

>>14772329
Fine then. I live in Sweden. Let's see what sort of arbitrary reason you come up with to justify how nothing you find under 10 million SEK is worth it.

>>14772346
Dangerously based
Haven't seen such a brilliant exposure of brainlets in a while

If my savings are 100money, or 1000money
1mil would make it either 10,000x or 1,000x
while
50mil would make it either 500,000x or 50,000x

Sure the 50mil is damn tempting but then again i have also lost red/black roll in roulette so many times that it would not land this time either and i would just btfo with 1mil

>>14772348
Alright, I stand corrected. I just checked and housing in Sweden is dirt-cheap.

>>14772252
A house? For less than 1 million dollars? Where? Not in America surely.

>>14772359
I'm genuinely shocked, I thought for sure you were just baiting me. But I wouldn't say it's dirt cheap, I'd say it's more a case of house pricing going completely haywire in dense metropolitan parts of the world due to easy credit access, large concentrations of valuable corporations drawing in high-wealth individuals, large landlords squeezing the market, and the general view that housing is an investment. Even in Sweden there's a lot of talk about a real-estate bubble, and prices aren't generally considered low. They just seem low because other parts of Europe and the US are so insanely expensive, particularly the capital regions of especially wealthy countries or large US states.

>>14772359
Kill yourself now loser, only way to save your dignity

>>14772372
In DFW Texas $300K would be a very nice suburban house. It's like that in most of the US excluding New York and California.

>>14772037
>Are there studies on why so many people value feelings more than logic and refuse to accept a logical answer?
just watch any post 2010 america documentary, What is a woman is my favorite

>>14772380
I realize you're a worthless subhuman whose entire sense of value comes from winning reddit debates, but I don't care that much.

>>14772258
I'm happy with my 3+2 on a half acre lot in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. I paid $180k for it five years ago. There is a bubble right now but that's not permanent and even if I had to pay $300k for my house, that's still $700k left over. But I could go down to Atlanta and sink the entire million into a condo where there are homeless shitting outside the front door and constant racial "unrest". If that's what you aspire to, then yes, you need more than a million for the privilege of having drug addicts shit on your doorstep and break into your car to steal the $0.37 they saw on the console.

>>14772378
I agree with your general assessment but as you say yourself:
>other parts of Europe and the US are so insanely expensive, particularly the capital regions of especially wealthy countries or large US states
That's what I had in mind when making my judgment and it certainly applies where I come from.

>>14772346
This anon is correct. Utility functions are often approximated with [math]\frac{c^{1-\eta}-1}{1-\eta}[/math] where [math]\eta[/math] is anywhere between 0.2 to 10 depending on the study. Even if you take [math]\eta = 0.2[/math] , the green button beats the red button hands down. Only people with unusually low risk aversion would pick green.

>>14772395
Sour fucking grapes. Loser. You have been talking here for over an hour

>>14772385
I heard in pitsburgh it often runs up to 3-6 mil

>>14772411
It's really funny to watch you lose your mind over it. Keep it up. Life must be stressful for a retard who worries about his 4chan reputation.

>this thread

>>14772416
>I heard
You're connected to the internet. You can go check real estate sites for yourself. Also that anon specified a suburban house so don't run off to Zillow and find the most expensive penthouse in a skyscraper in the middle of the city.

Cancel your subscriptions, get a house.

>>14772403
Yes, that's pretty common. People who grow up in those places end up having that as their frame of reference for what reasonable housing costs. The massive disconnect between house pricing in the really expensive metropolitan areas and everywhere else is very jarring. Of course I can understand not wanting to be forced from your home city by an overheated housing market.

The people who do manage to live in those expensive areas end up rationalizing how everything not in those areas is garbage and subhuman and that's why it's worth paying so much, and that's what I figured you were doing, but I guess that wasn't the case.

>>14772433
Or maybe you're just lucky to live in a country where your perspective is applicable.

>>14772432
>black neighbors
yeah no thanks

>>14772436
What do you mean by that?

>>14772441
east charleston used to be nice, it is now a nigger filled, crime ridden slum.
50 years ago charleston tore down it's black neighborhood to build a highway, but they didn't rid themselves of the black problem fully and its now grown back to being worse than it ever has been before.

Press the red and use it to make $50M.

>>14772444
You keep trying to make some dumb political points about urban vs. rural or whatever, but the fact of the matter is that housing in Sweden is relatively cheap even in the capital (at least according to Google). Moreover, as a general rule of thumb, if you stray too far from urban areas, you have to deal with shit infrastructure, nigger-tier people and trouble finding decent work. If this doesn't apply in your country, then again, just consider yourself lucky.

>>14772295
> $1M is something everyone under age 40 with a job will naturally acquire with minimal effort.

pay attention, this is guy that wont sell the top. dont be like this faggot. hey cum guzzling faggot, given that ill make a million over the next 20 years, then whats the compound return if i choose 1 million now?

>>14772346
damn anon you just made me hard

>>14772037
I'm homeless, so I press the red button, and I don't care what you fucking nerds think.

>>14772037
It’s hard to objectify the expected quality of life increase of receiving $1 million vs $50 million. For many (if not most) people, 1 million dollars would be life changing. It could mean escaping poverty or being able to buy a house and start a family. That kind of guaranteed quality of life improvement is worth more to me than a coin flip chance of being super wealthy.

>>14772222
wrong
(or not...I just like saying 'wrong' to all effort posts)

>>14772568
25 million

Ideally you'll find someone who will insure you and pay out 25 million if the green button fails, for the cost of handing them 25 million (or a bit more, to make it worth their while) if it succeeds.

>>14772648
You have to pay insurers before the event, not after

>>14772346
Some of us can't describe the reason behind our intuition that red is the better choice as well as you can. Therefore feelings do matter. That was what I felt all along, even though I didn't have big fancy math terminology to say it.

>>14772648
That's assuming you can find someone who'll want to bear this kind of risk. If you can, then it's optimal.

>>14772663
If they wouldn't accept and you don't want to be greedy, there's a lot of room for better deals for them. Have them pay you 10 million if you lose and you pay them 40 million if you win, that's still a guaranteed 10 million for you and much less risk form them

>>14772663
>>14772717
Just find someone rich that can bear the loss. Sell the green button for 10 million and it should be a good deal for them.

>>14772898
As an alternative don't push the green button, just use it as a coin worth 25 million.

>>14772037
ITT: OP gets blown off

>>14772037
Easy, I'd choose the green button as my only button and spam press it. What are you guys thinking pressing the red button? It never says you can't press it more than once, just that you can only choose one button to press.

Yeah, my IQ is over 9000

>>14773021
>you only have ONE button press

>>14773021
>It never says you can't press it more than once,
Jajaja but you are wrong. The posts explicitly says you only have "one button press"

>>14772274
Depends on the person. If you think everything available for purchase is worthless shit, then you would need a large amount of money such to fund the creation of objects actually worth purchasing. Personally I would probably need at least a billion to get what I want.

>>14773022
Laws are for the poor.

>>14772441
Ok Boomer!

>>14772037
What if your family is going to be killed by the cartel if you don't come up with 500k tomorrow... The choice can be statistically rigorous but it's still a personal choice as it pertains to the life of the chooser.

>>14772037

A starving man would rather have the guarantee of one meal then the chance of fifty.

I would press the green button.

>>14772295

>>14772568
1*1.08^25

6 million, which is also approximately the number of Jews that died in the Holocaust

>>14772037
>primes people to say red button in the OP post

Auction off your button press to a group of professional gamblers and game theorists for between 1-25m.

>>14772037
why do your subjective feelings prefer mathematically objective solutions?

This thread is starting to make my teeth hurt.

Expected value only makes sense for things you do over and over, not for one time events.

It is only "mathematically" correct to choose the green button if you can play the game multiple times.

Otherwise it is always a matter of the value to you of the win versus the loss. The proper rationality is not mathematical but relational; does the loss of the million dollars hurt you more than the chance of the gain of 50 million dollars? Unless you are a billionaire, OF COURSE IT DOES!

>>14772037
There is no mathematically objective solution, since the utility function is inherently subjective. A homeless man on the street would be perfectly rational to take the million dollars because it's more important that he get off the street than risk a 50/50 chance of staying there for an extra $49 million.

>>14773477
>does the loss of the million dollars hurt you more than the chance of the gain of 50 million dollars? Unless you are a billionaire, OF COURSE IT DOES!

Not really,
A million is not enough to retire on, it would make life much easier, but I would still have to work.
50 million means me and my entire family could retire to a good life.

The green button is the best button.

>>14773492
>There is no mathematically objective solution, since the utility function is inherently subjective.
You can be directionally objective without needing to get to an exact solution.
The objective part is that some better calculations than naive expected value which use a directionally better transformation like making it logarithmic can be supported with experimental evidence as more closely matching the results in aggregate of many random participants in a problem like this thread's one.
The closer you match the larger number of participants the largest number of times across multiple trials the more you can say you're approaching an objectively correct solution.
Across large numbers of participants it's no longer subjective and you can see a pattern and disregard the silly noise of retards trying to be special.

ITT nobody here studies economics
The utility from money is not linear, that first 1 million is more utility than the second million which is more utility than the 3rd, etc.
Consider U($) = ln(x+1)
With 1 million expected value, your expected utility is 13.8 and the expected utility for the 50 million button is a 50% chance of 0 and 50% chance of 17.7.
Thus your expected utility is higher with the guaranteed 1 million

>>14773511
Someone posted that exact utility calculation already, anon:
>>14772346

I would always choose the red button.
I can live on 100k for 10 years with that money, this would allow me to pursue endeavors that could gain me even more money.

>>14773513

>>14772037
This is an interesting problem from the perspective of Judaism (and also materialism since they're determinists)

In essence, the choice doesn't matter, you can press red, green, or neither, since the amount of money you will earn in a given year was already predetermined in Heaven, if you are supposed to win 50 million in that year, you will no matter what. If you are supposed to earn 1 million, you will no matter what. If you are supposed to not earn anything astronomical, you won't no matter what.

With that said, not choosing any buttom would be a good action since it would be an act of faith and thus increase your merit.

>>14773507
None of this is relevant to my post. There is no objective answer, regardless of experiments.

>>14773528
It's objective.
You can objectively say X formula predicts actual decisions with a success rate of 95% based on Y number of random participant trials.

>>14772037
no ones an npc, every person alive had to make a plan to come here

>>14773531
>You can objectively say X formula predicts actual decisions with a success rate of 95% based on Y number of random participant trials.
Again irrelevant. It's objectively true that the answer is subjective.

>>14773534
Nope. A success rate based on experimental evidence is objective.
It's subjective for one person, but you can get past that issue and make it objective by taking down the results of multiple participants in aggregate.
Your opinion about the Beatles is subjective, but the sales numbers for Beatles albums is objective. Subjectivity cam be solved for in most cases simply by aggregating.

>>14773511
Plenty of people already gave the same answer. This isn't arcane knowledge.

>>14773536
>just make your decision according to some aggregate, bro
>it's rational and objective
Why is this board so full of disgustingly moronic individuals?

>>14773553
I didn't say mske your decision based on that.
I said you can objectively measure how accurate a utility function is by using experimental data from large numbers of participants.

>>14773556
>I said you can objectively measure how accurate a utility function is
What's the point of an """objective""" utility function that no one can rationally use, retard?

>>14773558
It models behavior accurately. Might be useful if you're a marketer.
Don't know why you're so fixated on your one personal decision. You're one data point. Most likely you would match up with the function that's accurate to the largest number of participants, but you might not and it doesn't matter either way since you don't build anything useful based on a single person's answer.

>>14772037
Instant $1,000,000. Invest it and just keep living my minimal life.

>>14773561
>Don't know why you're so fixated on your one personal decision
Maybe because that's what the thread is about.

economic analysis

I live in a third world country making $500 per month (which is a lot compared to most people) where the dollar possess gigantic purchasing power. Of course it's RED.

>>14772037
>Why do NPCs
Bing Bang fake , Michelson Moreley bullshit, Evolution Theorie absurd, climate change wording for idiots, Sea level rising neglectable, Covid a chimera PCR test dumbshit, the whole virus story a fairytale but muuh, pressing this or that non existing knob is "emotional"
The current state of science and /sci

>>14772037
I half press both.

>Do you buy a stock?
>Or do you buy a out of the money call?
Bird in hand.

>>14773577

With Green you could rule a city in your country.

I'll take the 1 million. That's a lot of money and can give me financial freedom. The people who chose 50m are either gamblers or don't know how probability works

>>14772037
>50% chance
Why should I believe you? It’s much harder to scam me out of a 100% chance.

>>14773536
>A success rate based on experimental evidence is objective.
Irrelevant, a success rate is not the answer. The answer is subjective.

>It's subjective for one person, but you can get past that issue
Nope. This is as silly as saying the answer is objective because you can ask a person and observe their answer.

>>14772037
Red button obviously. The chance of getting 1 million is certain and is larger than the chance of getting 50 million.

>>14772037

Red button is for poor people and greedy people who want to take care of themselves.

Green button is for those who want to take care of their family and friends.

>>14772037
Green. 1 mill ain't shit anymore. Unironically YOLO, might as well go for the legendary win. As others pointed out, if you're piss broke you go with the 1 million obviously.

Imagine not taking the safe milly and throwing it in some nice investments or simply buy a house and retire and chill.

>But noooooo I can't afford 500 jet skis

Sorry, you got nothing instead lmao. This really is the /sci/ brainlet test. Muh probability means nothing when you get nothing because you were greedy

NOOOO YOU CANNOT USE A MAXIMIN STRATEGY BECAUSE THATS IRRATIONAL AND YOU JUST CANT

>>14772037
Hedging one's bets is rational. Doing a simple average because "mathematics is so awesome!! :DD" is irrational.

>>14772037
the utility of a certain 1 million is much higher to me than of an uncertain 50 million

my life would be changed with complete certainty in the first case, but it would be a coin flip in the second

i would press the left button for sure, no matter how high the right button was, it could be one trillion

>>14774277
but there would be a number for the first button being so low that you wouldnt press it

150k
50k
10k

a threshold exists, maybe not dependent on the second but instead on the person

>>14774301
dunno man, even 10k would let me quit my current shit job and try to find something more comfortable, even if i couldn't buy a house and invest from it like i could with one million

there would be a threshold once you got low enough yeah, it depends on the first button

>>14774309
you need investment and saving in your life.
get proficient and youll see your money stabilise and grow isntead of struggling the way you describe

just saiyan.

>>14774313
must be nice to have a monthly wage higher than 300 bucks

>>14774301
There would also be a number low enough for the second button that you wouldn't press it. /sci/ is unironically the brainlet board kek. Choosing a mathematical gamble over a large secure sum is peak Reddit math imbecile.

>>14774315
how old are you, get off this board.

are you missing limbs?

>are you blind>?

>>14774318
those are the only options you can think of? lmao

>>14774318
First world privilege

>>14772037
You've examined the expected value, but what about the variance? The variance of the first one is zero, while the variance of the second one is (25 million)^2 which gives a standard deviation of 25 million. That means that zero is within one standard deviation, ergo it's objectively dumb to pick 50 million 50% chance button.

Equivalently, suppose you have at least 1 million dollars in the bank and someone offered you a chance to bet it for a 50/50 chance at 50 million. Would you take it?

>>14772037
>win $50mil
>give $10mil to all my buddies who tried and failed
everyone turns out for the better

>>14772055
Something to do with decision making. There is something in microeconomics that deal with that, but I forgot the subject

>>14774618
>give $10mil to all my buddies who tried and failed
Theres only 1 button press. No buddies can try, only you

>>14772346
It should be noted here that anon has chosen a log utility function, which is an arbitrary choice. I observe a utility function that ascribes ridiculous amounts of value to the color green, so for me the answer is the 25 million button.

>>14772257
>spend 1m to charge 30k/yr in rent
Yeah I definitely want to wait over 30 years to break even. How about fuck off, retard.

>>14772346
What the fuck does expexted utility have to do with logs? Where are the logs coming from?

>>14772132
>My current balance to one million is a much smaller step than one million to 50M
You mean bigger, right because otherwise that's an argument in favor of pressing green
>>14772295
>getting a lifetime of earnings in an instant isn't worth it because you'll get it anyway
Look at what you wrote and think about it

>>14772271
>demands to live in an area he can't afford
>slaves away to both pay rent on his shoebox and taxes that pay my flyover mortgage
Thanks for all the freebies, never give up!

>>14774751
He's just assuming the utility function is log(x).

>>14774751
>>14774859
It's not a random assumption. The reason utility functions tend to be some variation on ln(x) is because taking the logarithm reflects diminishing returns. An extra one million after gaining an initial one million for example isn't really equally useful to the average person. With log applied you need much more money before it starts to move the needle again.
In this case that helps explain why people would prefer the red button since ln(50,000,000) gets flattened out to a much smaller utility value closer to ln(1,000,000), to the point where the 50% chance becomes more relevant and reduces the utility value of the green button to a lesser amount than the utility value of the red button.
Natural log is basically just the opposite of exponential modeling. Instead of reflecting runaway growth it reflects how utility flattens and isn't impacted much by linear scale additions.

>>14772055
Auctioning the rights to button push with starting bid at 10m

>>14773821
Best answer in the thread, go balls out or die trying

>>14774739
You will still have that 1 million in equity, and it will increase in value over 30 years, ensuring stability for your children and grandchildren.
How would you even spend over 30k a month anyways?

I make 95k/yr in Virginia, and the red button is a no brainer. Asked my wife about this and she said green, which got me flustered and in turn made her upset and we almost started having an argument. Both kids (7 and 6) said red.

>>14775022
I would punch your wife in the face. She's trying to cost you one million.

It's called marginal utility of income.
Most people would find a guaranteed 1 million much more useful than a 50% chance at 50 million.

>>14774940
>logarithm reflects diminishing returns
Any concave function reflects diminishing returns. Logs are a good approximation of actual behavior but you don't have to use logs if the data suggests another utility function to be more appropriate.

>>14772049
Fucking kek

>>14772037
This is retarded, the red button should at least be 12.5 million. 1 million isn't even 1 million nowadays, it's like $580,000 compared to a millennial million in the year 2000. Might as well replace the 1 million with a McDonald's cheeseburger. Normally though the red button would be the wiser option even though it's mathematically less money overall.

>>14775022
>How would you even spend over 30k a month anyways?
A month? You mean a YEAR

>>14775505
Yes sorry, the question remains. What are you spending 30k a year on anyways? After two or three years with a real job, expenses drop to almost nothing. Only big expenses are a house and vehicles.

>>14772037
who is to tell me I only have one button press? I have a million dollars now. I'll just hire a bunch of guys to shoot anyone trying to take back the button.

>>14774976
pretty good!
>>14773021
over 9000 is a mistranslation. the original is 八千以上だ which could be roughly translated "it's over 8000" but more accurately is "it's greater than or equal to 8000"

>>14773497
I want to test the plausibility of Scrooge McDuck's money diving by throwing ducks at a pile of coins.

>>14773536
You are fucking retarded. You could use the same reasoning to find the ideal place to fuck by averaging the locations of your neighbors' wives' cunts

>>14773536
You are fucking retarded. You could use the same reasoning to find the ideal place to stick your cock by averaging the locations of your neighbors' wives' cunts

100% chance to win $1 million
.1% chance to win $1 trillion

It's OBJECTIVELY BETTER to pick the trillion. Any other answer means you're low IQ. I, of course, am a genius either way.

Red button minimizes my personal probability of financial ruin.

>>14776483
No, that's not the same reasoning at all. The average location in your retarded example wouldn't be representative of the majority of locations if you mean geographical, while the tested function would be what gives the right answer in the majority of test decisions. And if you mean anatomical location instead then that'd just be trivially correct.
Also obviously it's a correct and objective way of measuring things to source from many different trial participants since that's exactly what every major corporation in existence spends massive amounts of money on to figure out how to market and sell their products.

>>14772037
Red all way. I am poorfag and a guaranteed 1 million is better than 50% possibility of 50 mills or nothing.

>>14772231
Cause I already have one million

>>14772037
>chance
You should base your answer on probability only if you have multiple attempts or if award doesn't matter that much.

I'll propose an alternate problem:

>You are lost in a desert without drinking water for days;
>You see a settlement in the distance;
>It would take about a day to reach it walking, but you will certainly die of dehydration in the middle of the way;
>A genie finds you and grants you a wish, but there are only two options:
>1. You will get 5 jars of water;
>2. You have 50% of chance of getting 12 jars of water and 50% of chance of getting nothing;
>You only need 4 jars of water to survive the trip to the settlement;
>Which wish is the best option?

Now, even if wish #2 has an average of 6 jars, that doesn't matter because that means nothing here. Wish #1 is 100% of chance of survival and wish #2 is 50% of chance of survival, the amount of water doesn't matter after the 4 jars.

>>14772037
>a mathematically objective solution
And there's a realistic solution of there are no buttons because nobody does that. Which one wins, the mathematical one that will never be valid for a single real world problem or the realistic solution that is uninteresting?

>>14772037
Find a dumbass rich Gambler like Trainwrecks and sell the the right to press the green button on your behalf for 1M and another 10M if they win the 50M.

>>14776479
>I want to test the plausibility of Scrooge McDuck's money diving by throwing ducks at a pile of coins.

Scrooge McDuck has DIAMOND HANDS

The guys from /biz/ will get the joke

>>14772334
>highest gdp in the world
>third world
I guess literally every country on Earth is a shithole and you will only be satisfied living on Mars

>>14772346
>>14774940
If you use square roots, which is another diminishing return function, you get an Expected Utility of ~$3,535.53 for the green button and and Expected Utility of $1,000 for the Red button.

>>14776569
only comparable if you're either literally a third-worlder or you were planning on committing an hero to escape poverty

>>14776706
But I am in a third world country
A million would change my life for the better, the green button is not worth 50% of staying in the same place no matter how big the prize is

>>14776479
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLJrzfWTu9E

>>14776669
>Muh GDP

Not an indicator of whether your country is a shithole or not.

>>14775570
>What are you spending 30k a year on anyways?
Accordions. Help!

>>14776706
Such situations apply to most people even in first world countries.

>>14776812
Its just an indicator of wealth not of happiness. This is known. Wealth is often a burden, for instance cars make it possible to get stuck in traffic

>>14776812
>>14777045
If we aren't basing it on wealth, then its just opinion based what country is a shithole. One man's utopia is another man's dystopia

Now do this one:

Red button: 100% chance to win a billion dollars

Green button: 1% to win a trillion dollars

Left. No risk of leaving with nothing. I rather have something then nothing. Right button shills with screech and cry as they leave with nothing while left shill Chad's all have a million dollars.

A 10 dollar wine bottle is more value for money than a 500 dollar wine bottle, most luxuries get diminishing returns the more expensive they are. What could you do with 50 million that you couldn't do with 1, and is it worth the risk of missing out a significant financial windfall?

>>14772467
Yokels in sweden are nice, if a bit tasteless, so there's nothing wrong with the character of people in the countryside. There's a significant amount of depopulation though, which is just sad to see and experience.

yea, people are more risk averse because evolutionarily a risk could have marginal utility but the cost of failing such a risk could lead to death

>>14776569
I pick wish #2 because I'm not a fag.

>>14772598
Bro quit the alcohol or sugar or whatever the fuck and get your shit together, come on

>>14772037
>Why do NPCs always introduce their subjective feelings into problems like pic related when there exists a mathematically objective solution? Are there studies on why so many people value feelings more than logic and refuse to accept a logical answer?
OP is retarded.

>>14772037
The real question is... how much money would the Green button have to offer for it to become the objectively smart choice?

>>14777951
Anything over one trillion dollars (seriously).

>>14777951
Exactly one (1) SneedCoin

>>14777951
Something abstract that inherently has more value than money. Example:

>Red button: instant $1M
>Green button: 50% chance of living 50 more years in good health

NOW it's a choice

>>14772228
kek

>>14772037
It's a behavioral economics question.

If you are struggling for money, a 100% chance of $1 million has more utility to you than a 50% chance of $50 million, because it instantly alleviates your financial problems. If you already have money in the bank and are set to retire comfortably regardless, then you're more likely to press the green button since a smaller chance of a greater reward has more utility to you.

>>14772037
>>14772037
Alright OP. Let's say you have 1 unit of an infinitely divisible currency, and a unit of this currency is equivalent to 1 million USD. Each step you can pay any amount less than the current money you have, to do a coin flip. If heads, you get 2.5x what you paid, if tails you get nothing. You play this game 50 times. By the same faggot logic that says the green button is better, you should be betting the entire amount of money you have every single coin toss - which gives an almost practically guaranteed ([math] 1 - \frac{1}{2^50} [/math]) chance of losing all your money, netting negative 1 million from where you started.

Find 10 friends.

Everybody pushes green.
Split the winnings 10 ways.

>>14772037
There's no objective solution, red for sure

>>14780888
Press the two buttons at the same time

Find somebody who will buy the buttons for somewhat less than 25M

>>14780883
You should bet 1/6 of your bankroll each time.

>>14780900
That's not optimal in terms of expected value of money, which is what OP is using to justify the green button. 1/6 is only optimal in terms of expected log value of money, and under that criterion the red button would be optimal. In terms of expected value of money - betting the entire amount every time would be optimal

>>14780893
What makes you (and all the other "I'd hack the system" posters) think that the opportunity will continue to be there after the immediate moment?

>>14780919
Mine is flawless, you need to press both at the same time

>>14772037
Find the person who is in possession of this money and shoot them, start over in alaska

I can't fathom not pressing green.
However, I've been on such a hot streak for the past 5-10 years (really since birth if you count inherited assets) that I'm worried I'm being irrational.
The investment/betting math I'd use? = kelly criterion =, and rough way of saying that is treating the Green Button as 1M gamble at about 49/1 odds. Long story short, rounding up, you'd press 'Green' if your current net worth is over about 3M. Otherwise the bet (1M) would exceed Kelly, so you'd take the red.
Since it's a one time thing, you'll have to actually incorporate a lot more of the considerations in this thread.

>>14780927
Ooops, you didn't know that pressing both at the same time delivers a lethal dose of electricity. Guess that's just the risk you take when playing with undefined behavior of a system.

>>14780970
Like i'm gonna let cliff pickover tell me the what I can or cannot press. Of course he would want me to think that...

The correct answer is obviously red.
Invest in bitcoin and you will have made 50 millions of off the red amount
Have fun staying poor

>>14772037
If I'm the only person then I press the red button.
When we are 10 persons then all of us press the green button and share equally.

>>14781342
plot twist, it's rigged and all 10 of you lose.

>>14781356
Well if it's rigged then it's rigged.

>>14772049
>implying money doesn't have diminishing returns

>>14781480
>ooops, it appears as though you were implying [insert low-functioning autismoid brain fart that was neither stated nor implied]

>>14772037
There is no mathematically objective solution retard. I would take the guaranteed $1 million without even hesitating and so would any other normal sane person. With that much money I'm guaranteed to never have to work a day in my life again.

>>14772137
comparing expected values is only the most rational solution if:
a- you can repeat the experiment several times (because of LLN)
b- the expection is finite (see the St. Petersburg paradox)

>>14772037
>let me disregard the law of laege numbers.

>>14772037
Restate the question and the answer is obvious:

Would you pay $1,000,000 to press a button that has a 50% of giving you $50,000,000 and a 50% of giving you nothing?

Only if you can afford to lose $1,000,000.

>>14774976
actual smartest post in the thread right here

>>14772295
>$1M is something everyone under age 40 with a job will naturally acquire with minimal effort
i admire your optimism but lmao no

take the million and buy a property in London

>>14782254
Over the course of your life? He’s almost certainly right. Never at one time, no, but as an aggregate of every paycheck you make until you die? Easily.

$20k * 50 years = one million

And that’s assuming you work a minimum wage job until retiring.

>>14782275
Enjoy your shed

>>14772037
>there exists a mathematically objective solution
According to my (subjective and implicit) utility function there is much greater difference between having $250 in my bank account and $1M, than $1M and $50M

>>14772295
>1M is something everyone under age 40 with a job will naturally acquire with minimal effort.
If you're American, maybe. Where I live (slavland) you're a big boy if you make more than $24k/yr pre-tax.

>>14772055
Green has a higher expected value than red, so it's the better "mathematical" choice, however even 1 mil usd can turn your life around so Id just go with that.