That, in a nutshell (pardon my choice of words) is it. I knew a couple of guys would eventually get it. Where were you earlier?
Speaking of your house, how do you think the insurance company sets your premium?
Men: Getting snipped. Yay or nay?
- Thread starter kombat
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
Yes, I am when I say that the fundamental concept being discussed here is terra incognita to you. Try some of the other guys's posts and see if that will drive it home.
kombat
Well-Known Member
Sorry, you called him "dumb." Totally different. My apologies.
Also, I think many of us were operating under the assumption that you were much younger than you apparently are. Given that we now know you're elderly, and the person you referred to was a former co-worker, it seems that your colleague had the procedure done much longer ago than we were assuming. In such case, surely you'll concede that the state of the art has advanced considerably in the intervening decades, and the risks of such negative outcomes has diminished substantially, altering your expected value calculations?
kombat
Well-Known Member
Such as ... ?
Gameface
Well-Known Member
@ajdelange
You're supposedly teaching us a lesson in regard to expected value. My understanding of expected value comes from my casual poker playing. Typically when a person who understands expected value starts talking about it they provide the numbers.
You can't accurately determine expected value without doing a little math.
So, umm, let's see your numbers. If you can't provide them then I think we should all point and laugh at the guy lecturing us on something he himself doesn't understand.
You're supposedly teaching us a lesson in regard to expected value. My understanding of expected value comes from my casual poker playing. Typically when a person who understands expected value starts talking about it they provide the numbers.
You can't accurately determine expected value without doing a little math.
So, umm, let's see your numbers. If you can't provide them then I think we should all point and laugh at the guy lecturing us on something he himself doesn't understand.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
There's a big difference between expected value and pot odds...
Here's an example of expected value related to lottery:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/did-math-415-million-powerball-175731046.html
But, the pot odds are looked at as getting a 830,000,000:1 return on your investment. A poker player would take those odds every day and twice on Sunday. A Mathematician would not.
Gameface
Well-Known Member
I know that there is a difference between pot odds and expected value. Expected value can be used in poker and involves more than pot odds. Expected value incorporates assumptions as to what range of cards the player might be holding, the frequency at which they bluff, the possibility of cards to come, the expectation of future bets, etc. Pot odds are but a very small part of getting at an expected value in a poker hand.
But either way, let's see the numbers.
And p.s. I do not calculate +ev or -ev when I play poker. I have a hard enough time figuring out if I have a straight,
Gameface
Well-Known Member
Many top poker players have a degree in game theory. They aren't limiting themselves to figuring pot odds.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
Oh, I completely agree...
Many are excellent Mathematicians.....not to mention skilled in many other ways.
You had just mentioned "casual" poker players. See, AJ, I read the posts.
kombat
Well-Known Member
I think they just call them "math degrees." AFAIK, there's no such thing as a "Bachelor's of Game Theory." It's just a B. Sc. in Math, possibly including one or more elective courses in game theory, in addition to all the other math prerequisites.
Gameface
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I'm sure you're right. Just wanted to make the point that there is a lot more to poker math than pot odds.
There are in fact huge differences but that's hardly the point. Certainly no apology necessary.
Did you have to use that word?
While it is certainly possible that the risks have indeed diminished and indeed also that the treatments for the mishap Larry experienced might be better I hasten to point out that I actually didn't do any formal calculations. It was not Larry's experience that turned me away from getting a vasectomy. I never ever considered it. It was not a mainstay of political correctness in those days. If mum didn't want more kids you got her spayed.
Clearly, when you get to be a Senior Citizen (if you don't mind) you wind up having a lot more conversations with medical personnel and expectational reasoning takes on a bigger role in your life.
All that said, the real point here is that if you are considering a vasectomy or back surgery or whatever you will be well served to consider all the risks, their probabilities and their costs in comparison to a similar tallies of the rewards.
What I think I am seeing a lot of here is the old cognitive bias problem. Everybody is telling you what a great thing a vasectomy is and you say jeez, I don't have to buy raincoats anymore and mum can't use "I'm fertile now" as an excuse: two pluses, stop there and decide to go with it. Then, also very clear here is the herd mentality: it's politically correct. At the heart of political correctness is the necessity to destroy obvious truth's (in this case that no man really wants to lose his manhood) with virulent attacks on how immature and selfish it is to consider that a negative.
I've never participated in the real internet i.e. in a forum where emotion and ad hominem attacks make up the bulk of the discussion. It's been interesting.
hunter_le five
Sheriff Underscore
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
Wait, you think having a vasectomy is losing your manhood, yet we're the ones guilty of cognitive bias????
hunter_le five
Sheriff Underscore
Vasectomies are dumb because expectational reasoning, and will only admit many asinine posts later that he's never done the calculations.
Is dismissive and insulting to those who disgree with him from the outset, then bemoans "the emotion and ad hominem attacks" in the thread.
Yup.
You could do that if you want but you would only advertise your own lack of understanding i.e. make yourself look even more foolish.
I will not repeat again the process for calculating the expected cost. It was clearly put forth multiple times that the probabilities can be obtained from research into the liklihood of various outcomes. The costs are your assessments. After seeing a guy go through what Larry did the cost would be very, very high. The apparent rewards are very low. I always used Malthusian devices that were safe and effective. What would be the rewards? Also, in those days, loss of fertility would be considered a cost. I know you are all now so much more sophisticated about those things than we were. The possibility of loss of a spouse and remarriage with another lady who wanted your children would have been another consideration. I understand now that reversibility is possible to some extent and, of course, that would adjust the cost of that particular outcome.
As apparently you and others are unable to deal with this level of abstraction (thank god for the guys on here who are!) here are my numbers
Costs
E (horrible experience) 1E-6*1E20 = 1E14
E (death) = whatever the probability is (finite though very small)*(value of your life)
E (other unfavorable outcomes) << 1E14
Benefits
E (Money saved on Condoms) 0
Money potentially saved on other methods of birth control = 1*1E4 (certainty)
Placement of bastard issue, abortions etc. =1E-3*2E5
Money saved on college education of children not aborted or kept 1E-6*2E5
Your feminist sister in law likes you 1E4
Are we up to 1E14 yet?
You can get a PHD in game theory though.
Gameface
Well-Known Member
So you don't have any numbers then?
Yeah, it didn't seem at all like you had any.
You've been pretty unspecific for a guy telling us all how dumb we are for not using EV for every decision we make.
This thread is moot. It's far too costly (from a risk analysis perspective) for any of us to be having sex. Think of the cost of treatment of HIV. You can get that from having sex. I mean, sure, you could explain to the person you are dating (or just banging) that it's your policy to have them tested for STDs three times at different clinics, but you'll have to turn them down anyways as the probability exists that those three independent tests were faulty and both of your full body condoms could prove futile, and as such, the cost of that risk is far too great for any reward to justify.
kombat
Well-Known Member
From where? Can you name a single accredited university that will confer one? I just did a bit of quick Googling and can't find any. Lots of Ph.D's in Economics and Math, and lots of "Game Theory" courses, but I can't find anyone willing to actually award a degree called a "Ph. D in Game Theory."
I would blast you again but it's like taking candy from a baby and I just can't do that any more and feel like a decent human being.
This isn't cognitive bias really. It's cultural bias. Fifty years ago, when I was faced with this decision (not that I really ever considered it) it was politically incorrect to get a vasectomy because no real man would ever do it. Was that a bias? You bet. But it was as distonic in those days when 'men were men' as it is distonic now not to be more politically correct than the next guy.
We didn't spay/neuter our dogs then either.
hunter_le five
Sheriff Underscore
Try London School of Economics. I think they have a fair reputation.
You can't just give up because you don't find what you are looking for in the first 5 hits. I would expect that if you went to any school with strong math or economic departments with the qualifications they would structure a program for you.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
A quick scan of the literature shows that there have been zero deaths attributed to vasectomy procedures.
And this "horrible" experience you keep speaking of from one person you worked with is really skewing your impression of the risks of this procedure....
Citations:
Adams CE, Wald M. Risks and complications of vasectomy. Urol Clin North Am. 2009; 36(3):331-6.
Davis BE, Noble MJ, Weigel JW, Foret JD, Mebust WK. Analysis and management of chronic testicular pain. J Urol. 1990; 143(5):936-9.
Kendrick JS, Gonzales B, Huber DH, Grubb GS, Rubin GL. Complications of vasectomies in the United States. J Fam Pract. 1987 Sep;25(3):245-8.
Schwingl PJ, Guess HA. Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy. Fertil Steril. 2000 May;73(5):923-36.
Last edited:
Yes. They are in 457.
Well I did but in the first place I knew you were to lazy to go look for them and in the second place as it is clear that you are not familiar with mathematical abstraction and the 'numbers' used in former posts were comparative as in 'even though p is small and $ is big then p*$ may well big enough to outweigh expected benefits' I thought I'd had better put something concrete here you might comprehend.
No, I've told you that you are being dumb for not being able to comprehend this simple concept. You do, in fact, use expectational reasoning from infancy (I want the cookie less than I want mom mad at me for taking the cookie but she's on the phone....)
That's what the planned parenthood sites tell you. Going a little further down the page you will find a newspaper account of a man in England who died as the result of sepsis from a 'routine' vasectomy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-513726/How-vasectomy-operation-killed-husband.html
Now I grant you this isn't the London Times but then I don't think its the National Enquirer either.
Then there's
"However, further analysis found vasectomy was linked to a stronger increased risk of more aggressive forms of prostate cancer: a 19% higher risk for advanced cancer and a 20% higher risk of the lethal form."
I don't want to get into a contest as to who can find more papers saying there is no risk as opposed to those who say there is. My point is that you can assign whatever probability you think best represents the truth and I can do the same. If you think p = 0 is right, use p = 0. Of course I'd encourage you to be aware of cognitive bias and keep looking until you are certain.
Oh I don't doubt that for a minute and said that in so many words when I was, for the fifth or sixth time that the probability is the probability but you must come up with a value for the cost yourself.
You can argue the costs with me, and as I pointed out to the drunk guy the other night, and you can argue my assessment of the costs but you cannot argue the method. Grasp that, as a few here have, and understanding is yours.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
Sorry, but I don't go to planned parenthood sites, nor British newspapers, for my medical research.
How about the Journal of Clinical Oncology. That's where the other quote came from.
You can dismiss the newspaper story if you like (and confirmation bias says you must) but either the newspaper lied or the guy died. Assuming they are telling the truth the cause of death may have been listed as sepsis rather that vasectomy. Just as when a man dies from prostate cancer his cause of death is listed as prostate cancer - not the vasectomy that lead to it. Correlation vs causation should of course be considered here but I'll note that this Harvard study specifically looked for that. Some things you should think about but don't if you are afraid you might not like the answers you come up with.
You can dismiss the newspaper story if you like (and confirmation bias says you must) but either the newspaper lied or the guy died. Assuming they are telling the truth the cause of death may have been listed as sepsis rather that vasectomy. Just as when a man dies from prostate cancer his cause of death is listed as prostate cancer - not the vasectomy that lead to it. Correlation vs causation should of course be considered here but I'll note that this Harvard study specifically looked for that. Some things you should think about but don't if you are afraid you might not like the answers you come up with.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,418
- Reaction score
- 3,058
Don't forget to look both ways when you cross the street. I hear there is a probability of death if a car hits you. Well statistically speaking.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
The results of my vasectomy have actually exceeded my expectations (in a positive way). That was unexpected (again, in a positive way), based on my consequences table constructed during the Structured Decision Making process for the procedure.
Delighted to hear it.
There seem to be two major misconceptions here that no number of repetitions seems to be able to eradicate:
1)I am not telling people that they shouldn't get vasectomies. I think everyone should.
2)Expectational analysis is limited in its ability to tell you what to do in a particular situation. It can only give guidance as we are dealing with probabilities. Was Churchill right to sacrifice Coventry (I was wrong about Lincolnshire)?
If your situation worked out better than you hoped then obviously you didn't tot up the +'s correctly but who cares; you got lucky. But then if you later get prostate cancer you may change your mind about that (but don't worry about that as you can probably find a paper that comes to the opposite conclusion from the Harvard study).
There seem to be two major misconceptions here that no number of repetitions seems to be able to eradicate:
1)I am not telling people that they shouldn't get vasectomies. I think everyone should.
2)Expectational analysis is limited in its ability to tell you what to do in a particular situation. It can only give guidance as we are dealing with probabilities. Was Churchill right to sacrifice Coventry (I was wrong about Lincolnshire)?
If your situation worked out better than you hoped then obviously you didn't tot up the +'s correctly but who cares; you got lucky. But then if you later get prostate cancer you may change your mind about that (but don't worry about that as you can probably find a paper that comes to the opposite conclusion from the Harvard study).
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
If you lived in Coventry, probably not....
If you lived elsewhere, probably...
If I read that study correctly, 16 in 1000 men without a vasectomy developed the aggressive prostate cancer compared to 19 in 1000 men that had a vasectomy.....
AKA, I'm not worried about the vasectomy increasing my prostate cancer risks....
That is a very good point. You really don't care that much about what happened in Coventry or Lincolnshire nor in fact, confronted with the lethal form of prostate cancer whether you were one of the 3 in a thousand that got it because of a vasectomy. You care about whether you are going to survive it.
BTW in checking on Coventry I found an article that says the story isn't true but it's a great illustration of the concept we are discussing.
I shouldn't be worrying young men about such things (and being a typical old fart talking about how much better it was in the good old days) so let's just observe that this, assuming you are reading it right, gives you p(aggressive_prostate_cancer) = 3/1000 to multiply by cost_aggressive_prostate_cancer in your risks column.
That is indeed up to you to decide. The question being addressed at the moment is as to whether anything should go into the risk budget or not for lethal consequences. It seems that 0.003*0.05 (with the latter number being the probability they can't 'cure' you of prostate cancer) is the probability of death from vasectomy via prostate cancer. Small but not 0.
So in plain English, what was the point of you coming into this thread talking about some dude you knew who's snipping went bad a long time ago? Cause this was just all over the place.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
The study said that those 3 people got cancer because of the vasectomy????
I've come to the conclusion that you're just bored and trolling now....
Well, believe it or not, I thought it would amuse people.
I also kind of thought that 'all over the place' was appropriate for this forum.
I also mentioned that I have steadfastly refused to get into a web discussion where emotion ruled over ratiocination because they are like those TV 'news' shows where the talking heads just shout at each other and thought I might give it a try.
Then I tried to turn it into a math/science discussion. Mistake, obviously but a couple of people apparently understand.
And I guess there must be a bit of the bully in me because I did beat up a couple of people who really couldn't defend themselves but, of course, that wasn't my original intention.
I also kind of thought that 'all over the place' was appropriate for this forum.
I also mentioned that I have steadfastly refused to get into a web discussion where emotion ruled over ratiocination because they are like those TV 'news' shows where the talking heads just shout at each other and thought I might give it a try.
Then I tried to turn it into a math/science discussion. Mistake, obviously but a couple of people apparently understand.
And I guess there must be a bit of the bully in me because I did beat up a couple of people who really couldn't defend themselves but, of course, that wasn't my original intention.
