Men: Getting snipped. Yay or nay?

[bob1852]

The problem here is that people don't read the posts through before they start typing. This is clear from the nature of the responses. In the one case where the poster sincerely tried to get information the question was posed as "what do you mean when you say...." and then inserted something I never said.

If you will ask a rational question that reflects something I wrote I will try to give you an answer/explanation (without being condescending) but I really suspect this is flame bait.

Assuming that you are sincere I will summarize the argument I am trying to make.
I hope everyone here, and a whole lot of other people too, get vasectomies (or tubal ligations or pessaries or whatever) but that is not part of the argument. The argument is:

Expectational analysis is a very powerful tool for making decisions widely used in industry, government, academia etc. A simple example of this is that the expected value of an insurance company's received premiums has to exceed the expected value of its paid benefits if it is to stay in business. If you are contemplating a vasectomy, or any other medical procedure, or making any other major decision you should do the analysis.


Now were you a young employee of mine asking whether you should get a vasectomy I would tell you to do the expectation analysis and give you some guidance as to what to put in the cost column and let you decide what to put in the benefits column. I would tell you about L. Marble. I would also tell you that IMO the equation is likely to come up on the don't do it side.

OK. There it is. One more whack at the tar baby.

If the experience of one person is what goes into the analysis, that's not a very good expectational analysis, IMO.

I heard of a guy who drank too much water and died as a result, therefore my expectional analysis says I should never drink water...

 

[ajdelange]

Yeah, I think most of us got that part already.

Apparently not.

But thanks for explaining it again in plainer terms so us simpletons can understand. You're still not presenting much in the way of evidence for why you think the analysis results in A over B, you're just continuing to be condescending.

Again it's clear you don't understand. I cannot offer evidence as to how your analysis will come up because I don't know what numbers you will put into it. I can tell you why it came up negative for me though. If there is no expected benefit (and I don't see any) but there are expected costs then the equation comes out negative then the net expected costs are negative and to go ahead is dumb. If, conversely, you see expected benefit that outweighs the costs (the transistor radio in the Indian government programs for example was sufficient) then it is not dumb and you go ahead.

I'm well aware of what expectation is.

Were that the case we would be arguing about the magnitudes of the costs and benefits and their probabilities and there would indeed be a basis for intelligent discussion but you can't seem to grasp the fundamental concept. I am sorry if that is insulting but you probably never had training in decision theory and can't really be expected to. You could always look it up but when I suggested that last night you took it as an insult.

Continuing to blather on about what expectation is not an argument for why getting a vasectomy is "dumb".

No it isn't but then if you had read the post you would know that this isn't what I am arguing.

That would be like my boss asking me why I think parking all of our cash reserves in municipal bonds is a bad idea, and I just replied "numbers".

Were I your boss my reply would be "Let's see those numbers". What you are missing is that it isn't the algorithm that gives the answer: it's the numbers put into it.

If you can grasp this I will continue but it doesn't look hopeful at this point and I will go back to Brewing Science where the impedance match is better.

 

[hunter_le five]

Get off your damned high-horse already and say something of substance.

You make very generalized comments on how getting a vasectomy is dumb, and then continue to hide behind assumptions that we're not on your level to avoid discussing details. You're a real piece of work.

I guess it's real easy to avoid losing arguments when you refuse to make them.

Expected benefit could be debated until the cows come home, and obviously that's going to very from person to person. If the sole reason you think vasectomies are dumb is because you personally don't perceive a benefit to yourself, then that's not much of an argument.

We all agree that there are risks and there are costs. The what and the how much and the probabilities are what interest me, but you refuse to even address these other than to assert that they exist and that they are unacceptably high, along with a thoroughly uncompelling anecdote about your sample size of one.

 

[MT2sum]

Erryone gets a vasectomy!

OOPS ...... looks like someone had one or two beers too many while posting in this depressing thread!

 

[hunter_le five]

OOPS ...... looks like someone had one or two beers too many while posting in this depressing thread!

Which time?

 

[ajdelange]

If the experience of one person is what goes into the analysis, that's not a very good expectational analysis, IMO.

No it isn't but that works both ways. You can't say the fact of Larry's bad experience, by itself, means that you shouldn't get one any more than the fact that you had one without problems means you should. But those are both data points that should be combined with an ensemble of others to help you estimate the probabilities that you put into your equation. As for the costs, only you can really put numbers to those.

I heard of a guy who drank too much water and died as a result, therefore my expectional analysis says I should never drink water...

That would be a very flawed analysis. First, this information tells you what can happen if you drink too much water which isn't really relevant to your decision to have a drink when you are thirsty unless you are in one of those stupid radio station contests which have killed people. Of more relevance here is the probability that you will suffer the bad consequences of drinking too much water (arrythmia from electrolyte depletion say) even though you drank a normal amount. This is a finite probability, should be multiplied by the cost of such an outcome and put into the costs column. But other things go into the cost column too. The consequences of not drinking water, their probabilities and the product of the probabilities with the costs. Then in the benefits column you would put the benefits of proper hydration multiplied by the probabilities of realizing them. Such an analysis would clearly lead to the conclusion that it would be dumb to forswear water even though there is risk associated with it. If you repeated this for too much water you would conclude that it is dumb to enter one of those contests.

Is this understandable?

 

[ajdelange]

Get off your damned high-horse already and say something of substance.

I have patiently explained things at a level school children should be able to understand and I'm not going to continue repeating to a brick wall.

You make very generalized comments on how getting a vasectomy is dumb, and then continue to hide behind assumptions that we're not on your level to avoid discussing details.

Well you clearly aren't.

You're a real piece of work.

Thanks

I guess it's real easy to avoid losing arguments when you refuse to make them.

I don't think I've lost any arguments here because no one has refuted the argument I have made. Several people, especially you, are trying to refute the argument you think I am making because you aren't reading what I am posting.

Expected benefit could be debated until the cows come home, and obviously that's going to very from person to person.

Duh!

If the sole reason you think vasectomies are dumb is because you personally don't perceive a benefit to yourself, then that's not much of an argument.

But then that's not the argument I'm making.

We all agree that there are risks and there are costs. The what and the how much and the probabilities are what interest me, but you refuse to even address these

Had you read my previous post you would have seen that I said that those are exactly the things that we should be discussing. I note with interest that you did not mention them until after I did.

..other than to assert that they exist and that they are unacceptably high,

Never said that. I said the expectation equation with my personal assessment of the risks , rewards and probabilities came out negative = dumb.

... along with a thoroughly uncompelling anecdote about your sample size of one.

It was pretty compelling to him and his colleagues. I think it is fair to say that p and $ were both higher in the minds of the guys that he worked with than perhaps the in those of the general population.

There comes a time when one has to realize that if he argues with a fool there are two fools arguing and I think that time has come and in reality passed.

If anyone has reasonable questions or comments I will address those.

 

[Zuljin]

If it were possible to travel back in time, I'd be a urologist, and also a genealogist. And I'd take this thread with me.

 

[MT2sum]

OK. There it is. One more whack at the tar baby.

You may be able to say "Tar Baby" in Quebec, but since it's been politically incorrect here in the U.S. since the 1960's and the rise of the politically correct movement, it would behoove you not to use it too much! Just to let you know ;>) or you might get trashed just for using that phrase!

 

[Remmy]

My balls hurt more after reading the last ~30 posts in this thread more than they do reading about a vasectomy itself.

 

[bob1852]

My balls hurt more after reading the last ~30 posts in this thread more than they do reading about a vasectomy itself.

My balls hurt reading these post more than my actual vasectomy hurt my balls.

 

[TX_Brewing]

One more whack at the tar baby.

Now your racist (or you whack babies) every other argument wins!

 

[Helly]

Unsubscribing. If anyone actually wants to ask me about my experience, then PM me. Good grief. Some people I guess.

 

[kombat]

I can tell you why it came up negative for me though. If there is no expected benefit (and I don't see any)

Totally eliminating the risk of unwanted pregnancies isn't a "benefit?"

Also, I'm told sex without a raincoat is the bees knees.

 

[ajdelange]

Well if you understand the expectation process I've been discussing you will have picked up that while the probability of an outcome is something you should try to research the cost or benefit is something you assign based on how you think each of the outcomes will effect you. For me the marginal value of 8 nines (99.999999%) relative to 4 nines was nil. And using the logic that seems so popular in this thread I must have been absolutely right on this as I never had more issue than I wanted.

Of course in reality the benefit of these extra nines isn't really a benefit but rather a reduction in a cost: the cost of rearing a child which, as I noted in an earlier post persists over a lifetime but that's just a formalism. You can certainly call a reduction in cost a benefit if you like. The point being that if the addition of another 9 or 3 buys you enough benefit based on your own estimate of the benefit's value to outweigh the risks, as it clearly does for you, then you should go ahead.

 

[blizz81]

What's the status quo / four nines in use currently?

 

[PADave]

Totally eliminating the risk of unwanted pregnancies isn't a "benefit?"

Also, I'm told sex without a raincoat is the bees knees.

Yes and yes.

 

[Venari]

Also, I'm told sex without a raincoat is the bees knees.

It really is. It's practically the only way I go.

I just have to take other precautions to prevent an 18.75 year parasite.

 

[Inkleg]

Well if you understand the expectation process I've been discussing you will have picked up that while the probability of an outcome is something you should try to research the cost or benefit is something you assign based on how you think each of the outcomes will effect you. For me the marginal value of 8 nines (99.999999%) relative to 4 nines was nil. And using the logic that seems so popular in this thread I must have been absolutely right on this as I never had more issue than I wanted.

Of course in reality the benefit of these extra nines isn't really a benefit but rather a reduction in a cost: the cost of rearing a child which, as I noted in an earlier post persists over a lifetime but that's just a formalism. You can certainly call a reduction in cost a benefit if you like. The point being that if the addition of another 9 or 3 buys you enough benefit based on your own estimate of the benefit's value to outweigh the risks, as it clearly does for you, then you should go ahead.

I think you're over analizing this.

 

[pandamonium]

Here's some numbers for your "expectational analysis" (who talks like that? Seriously?). Less than 1% risk of major complication. A 2-3 day average recovery time. And a 99.99% success rate in establishing sterility. Compare that to a 97% success rate for the next most effective form of male contraception. It's one of the most enormously successful and least risky operations a man can have, of any operation, period. AJ is hiding behind a wall of words and would be laughed out of any real medical conversation. I respect your opinions immensely regarding water chemistry, but please stick to what you know.

 

[CGVT]

Here's some numbers for your "expectational analysis" (who talks like that? Seriously?). Less than 1% risk of major complication. A 2-3 day average recovery time. And a 99.99% success rate in establishing sterility. Compare that to a 97% success rate for the next most effective form of male contraception. It's one of the most enormously successful and least risky operations a man can have, of any operation, period. AJ is hiding behind a wall of words and would be laughed out of any real medical conversation. I respect your opinions immensely regarding water chemistry, but please stick to what you know.

OOOOOOOOooohhhh. That's gonna leave a mark. Ha!

 

[mxstar21]

I can't read through all of this, is there a Cliff's Notes version? How did the guy lose a testicle from a vasectomy? I had mine a couple of years ago and the worst part was the numbing shot. Nothing changed other than I can't knock up any more of your moms.

 

[jspain3]

I can't read through all of this, is there a Cliff's Notes version? How did the guy lose a testicle from a vasectomy? I had mine a couple of years ago and the worst part was the numbing shot. Nothing changed other than I can't knock up any more of your moms.

Some guy says everyone here should make a Pro & Con list (like Ross did with Rachel) and decide if a vasectomy is a good choice for them. Some people will have more pros and others will have more cons. It's fine, because it's all based on each individual's own risk tolerances and perceived benefits. This is to be expected, but, if you have more pros, you're somehow wrong.

Also, instead of calling it a Pros & Cons list you have to call it Expected Value calculations and do some internet research about the methodology.

 

[mxstar21]

Pros definitely outweigh the cons. The worst part was the numbing shot. Still curious how one would lose a testicle during this procedure. If you have all the kids you want, do it. It really isn't that bad and is less painful than having the wife get her tubes tied.

 

[stella_tigre]

Pros definitely outweigh the cons. The worst part was the numbing shot. Still curious how one would lose a testicle during this procedure. If you have all the kids you want, do it. It really isn't that bad and is less painful than having the wife get her tubes tied.

Also less expensive. I mentioned this thread to HWMO and after his surprise at the subject matter, he said to reply that it's great, in spite of the higher pitched voice and getting manboobs

 

[Jonakr]

Also less expensive. I mentioned this thread to HWMO and after his surprise at the subject matter, he said to reply that it's great, in spite of the higher pitched voice and getting manboobs

Not only did the pitch of my voice raise, I got manboobs, I can no longer read a map, and it forced my wife's ovaries to drop.

Seriously, though, I was snipped while coaching a martial art. I only took two vicodan during recovery, but it was a good 3 weeks before kicking above the belt didn't pull on my stitches. I had plenty of discomfort, I had some lingering pain and had to be careful about position for about 3-4 months.

However, my wife not needing the pill, and not needing condoms or other birth control has been well worth it.

 

[mxstar21]

Also less expensive. I mentioned this thread to HWMO and after his surprise at the subject matter, he said to reply that it's great, in spite of the higher pitched voice and getting manboobs

Not sure what HWMO means, I am not that great with all of the acronyms. He can say what he wants. A vasectomy does not change testosterone levels or cause man ****s. Funny he he is the bitch on the couch though!

 

[jspain3]

Not sure what HWMO means, I am not that great with all of the acronyms. He can say what he wants. A vasectomy does not change testosterone levels or cause man ****s. Funny he he is the bitch on the couch though!

SWMBO = She Who Must Be Obeyed
HWMO = He Who Must Obey

 

[stella_tigre]

Not sure what HWMO means, I am not that great with all of the acronyms. He can say what he wants. A vasectomy does not change testosterone levels or cause man ****s. Funny he he is the bitch on the couch though!

= humor. Ar, ar, ar. He thought that such a subject thread on a brewing board was humorous, ya know?

PS pretty sure that BOTC is not appropriate description for him.... but hey you gave us a great new acronym to use! Yay!

 

[mxstar21]

SWMBO = She Who Must Be Obeyed
HWMO = He Who Must Obey

Thanks!!!