# Bribing people to sterilise themselves, Part 2: Get the snip, win a blender says India. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2011, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563 "2011-07-01T22:41:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/81 "2011-07-08T23:55:29Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > I am, and have been, talking about exploiting children by making them work. This is what I was meant in regards to censuring the people involved in the industrial revolution, and why I brought up child labor laws. If you’re just talking about people having large families, I’m sure you’re right, but it has nothing to do with the topic I’m discussing. [You interrupted the thread with a throwaway sarcastic remark](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13990266#post13990266) that pretended that even sven’s comment about the need for people to have large families was in some way a claim that they were being “noble” when her actual comment was that they needed children to survive. You provided no further context in that snide post and your subsequent posts have been based on the assumption that everyone else knew what personal hang-ups you had with the issue. > [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > You’ve never seen any indication this has happened? I have. My girlfriend’s father is from a rural village in China, where he was forced to drop out of school at an early age to help out with the work. He ran away at 13 to Hong Kong, where there were better opportunities, and eventually made it to the U.S. His brothers weren’t so lucky, and still live in poverty in that shithole village with no education. I’ve been to the village, and that seems to be the case for most of the people still living there. Maybe you could check out the literacy rates in many western African countries as well - no doubt lack of infrastructure plays a part, but the fact is there are many children in the world denied an education because they’re needed to work at home. Why you feel the need to paint these parents as altruistic pragmatists who wait until their kids have finished high school before they put them to work is a mystery to me, and quite demonstrably false. Of course parents can still love their children, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re exploiting them. Your view sounds simplistically “noble savage” and much more condescending than mine, IMO. Back to your irrelevant claims of “nobility”? Your claims that I am “paint[ing] the parents as altruistic pragmatists” is more nonsense. I have made no claim for altruism; I simply note that most people put a premium on survival. That you would like to assert that they should simply wither away and die because they can’t meet your Western, industrialized standards has nothing to do with any real concern for their lives; it is only a sop to your sense of self-righteous anger. I never made the claim that no child has been unfairly denied an education or a childhood. I noted that no subsistence culture has been based on treating its children as worker bots. It goes beyond educational infrastructure, (although you are pretty blithe in dismissing that problem); rather, it is the tragedy of a people trapped in a cycle that they cannot break without some sort of external support or a change in their entire environment while you blame the victims for their problems. > [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > What does the fact that the majority of farming societies did something throughout history have to do with it? They were still wrong. History has much longer periods where slavery was encouraged than when it wasn’t. Wrong is wrong. Do I think subsistence farmers are going to stop having children to use in the fields? No. But it’s still fucked up. There can be situations where both options are morally unjust, you know. You give people the Procrustean option that they must simply behave in the manner that you like or go off and die and you want to claim you are arguing for morality? You have failed to persuade me. > [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > My point was about cultural relativism. It’s OK to call something wrong without automatically calling for that culture to be annihilated. Then you should have waded in with alternative solutions and an actual thought out response rather than simply blasting away with your sneering attitude and your misrepresentations of what other posters have submitted. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/82 "2011-07-09T00:47:57Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > [You interrupted the thread with a throwaway sarcastic remark](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13990266#post13990266) that pretended that even sven’s comment about the need for people to have large families was in some way a claim that they were being “noble” when her actual comment was that they needed children to survive. You provided no further context in that snide post and your subsequent posts have been based on the assumption that everyone else knew what personal hang-ups you had with the issue. Sorry you had a problem getting the point. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Back to your irrelevant claims of “nobility”? > Your claims that I am “paint[ing] the parents as altruistic pragmatists” is more nonsense. I have made no claim for altruism; I simply note that most people put a premium on survival. That you would like to assert that they should simply wither away and die because they can’t meet your Western, industrialized standards has nothing to do with any real concern for their lives; it is only a sop to your sense of self-righteous anger. Never said they should wither away and die. I said _I_ would prefer to wither away and die than doom my kids to a dead-end life of poverty and misery. I also said it might be my cultural perspective. Who knows? Maybe if I’d been born into a region where women were stoned to death for getting laid I’d approve of the practice. But I wasn’t, and I’ll call it wrong, just as I’ll call exploiting children wrong, even if it’s necessary to the parents’ survival. That’s not the same as saying the parents should just die. > [@tomndebb](#): > > I never made the claim that no child has been unfairly denied an education or a childhood. I noted that no subsistence culture has been based on treating its children as worker bots. It goes beyond educational infrastructure, (although you are pretty blithe in dismissing that problem); rather, it is the tragedy of a people trapped in a cycle that they cannot break without some sort of external support or a change in their entire environment while you blame the victims for their problems. Yes, when people have children to exploit them, whether for work or to provide an organ for a dying sibling, I say I think it’s wrong. So what? You seem to be under the impression that believing something’s wrong means I therefore think the perpetrator of the wrong should be made to suffer some harsh penalty. I never said that. I’m not a Christian. I can feel for people and still think what they did was unjust. > [@tomndebb](#): > > You give people the Procrustean option that they must simply behave in the manner that you like or go off and die and you want to claim you are arguing for morality? You have failed to persuade me. Never said any such thing. I don’t know whether I haven’t been clear or your own biases are causing you to put words in my mouth, but I didn’t say anyone should go off and die if they don’t behave in a manner I agree with. I’ll say it a second time: You can be stuck in a situation where all your options are fucked up - that doesn’t make it any less wrong when you have to choose the (presumed) lesser of two evils. I’ve been there myself, and I have no problem saying what I did was wrong. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Then you should have waded in with alternative solutions and an actual thought out response rather than simply blasting away with your sneering attitude and your misrepresentations of what other posters have submitted. Right back at you. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2011, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/83 "2011-07-09T01:28:27Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Sorry you had a problem getting the point. I’m sorry that you would rather be snide than engage in legitimate discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2011, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/84 "2011-07-09T15:55:23Z")
> [@Deegeea](#): > > For the “without math” part: > > Say you and this other guy are equally good at target shooting with bow and arrow. He gets to shoot tries at a tough target all day, you get one shot. That’s about your 1 in 1000 odds, of you beating him in that situation. > > Now say he gets to shoot every day all day for three years and you get one chance to beat him. That’s the 1 in 1,000,000. I see that I shouldn’t have looked at this thread again. Your example is meaningless in terms of the actual value of the odds. Anybody who saw me get beat would say practice, not give an odds estimate. Humans also do not express any cognitive capacity to understand numbers like 1000 and 1x10^6 without mathematics. If I beat the other archer with one shot it’s called “luck” by every human society that has existed (or possibly a “god”). The term luck has within it the acknowledgement that yes, the event did happen, but no it probably will not happen again. In fact, we generally do not take bizarre random events and call them bizarre and random. We try to fit them into a pattern. This is one of the reasons why gambling-related beliefs are so effective in taking people’s money. > [@Deegeea](#): > > There is no convincing evidence that math is not part of normal human thinking, to the extent that no one can do it intuitively. If you define “normal” that way, you’re the one being (what you call) arrogant and refusing to understand that some people can use intuition with regards to mathematics. There is, however, good evidence that some people - the majority of people, even - do have the problem you speak of, but there are ways around that such as the example above. Of course math is part of normal human thinking, and you hit on a perfect term for why our mathematical thinking can be so skewed: intuitive. Intuition does not give you exact odds. Intuition gives you a sense of rarity but intuition also allows us to take extremely rare events and turn them into a piece of a sound, logical pattern. For example, I might take that somebody is struck by a lightning bolt on 3 different occasions and say God is punishing him. My intuition understood getting hit by lightning that often as being rare but it also utilized my cultural knowledge and innate biases to come up with a useless explanation. As you said, we use intuition effectively in mathematical situations all the time, but our ability to intuitively come to the mathematical correct answer breaks down as the numbers become less a part of our daily experience. > [@Deegeea](#): > > If you still feel that my story about the bow and arrow contest does not give any sense of a difference between 1:1000 and 1:1000000 odds, then please consider the possibility that you have some kind of unusual learning disability with regards to odds comprehension. I think if you did a survey of your rural friends, asked if they felt there was any difference in the way they felt about taking one shot vs the other guy’s all day, or taking one shot vs the other guy’s 3 years of all day, they might just surprise you… I never said people do not understand the terms rare or luck. I said that people do not understand all this without a wide variety of cognitive biases creeping in. I have the same learning disability that the other 6 billion+ humans have. One final thing, when you read what I am saying, don’t assume that I am prejudiced against rural people and my words will make a lot more sense. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2011, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/85 "2011-07-09T17:23:41Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I said that people do not understand all this without a wide variety of cognitive biases creeping in. I have the same learning disability that the other 6 billion+ humans have. One final thing, when you read what I am saying, don’t assume that I am prejudiced against rural people and my words will make a lot more sense. Just for clarification: do you therefore want to forbid not just the folks in question, but _ **everyone,** _ from engaging in this sort of balls-as-the-ante gamble? ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2011, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/86 "2011-07-09T21:30:45Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Just for clarification: do you therefore want to forbid not just the folks in question, but _ **everyone,** _ from engaging in this sort of balls-as-the-ante gamble? Of course not. In my view, as I have stated several times, this is poorly thought out and highly unethical policy. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2011, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/87 "2011-07-10T00:29:37Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Just for clarification: do you therefore want to forbid not just the folks in question, but _ **everyone,** _ from engaging in this sort of balls-as-the-ante gamble? > > Of course not. In my view, as I have stated several times, this is poorly thought out and highly unethical policy. So no matter how intelligent and educated the individual, you’d never let them consent to this sort of thing – not me, not you, not anyone – but you _ **would** _ let folks all across the spectrum consent to having their balls lopped off so long as there was no gambling involved? Have I got that right? Obviously you know my position: it’d be a highly ethical policy so long as consent is obtained without fraud or force. Your position is that it’d be highly ethical so long as (a) consent is obtained without force or fraud, _ **and** _ (b) prizes are either given out 0% or 100% of the time? Is that accurate? ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2011, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/88 "2011-07-10T05:13:11Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > So no matter how intelligent and educated the individual, you’d never let them consent to this sort of thing – not me, not you, not anyone – but you _ **would** _ let folks all across the spectrum consent to having their balls lopped off so long as there was no gambling involved? Have I got that right? It really is the only way to be sure that’s what they want. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Obviously you know my position: it’d be a highly ethical policy so long as consent is obtained without fraud or force. Your position is that it’d be highly ethical so long as (a) consent is obtained without force or fraud, _ **and** _ (b) prizes are either given out 0% or 100% of the time? Is that accurate? That the compensation for being asked to have a vasectomy is unambiguously capable of being understood (I have other modifiers that are consistent with what **Der Trihs** stated in his first post, but in this precise circumstance they are just the other reasons why this context is unethical). So yeah you have it. The only serious difference between you and I is that I think offering the contract in the context of gambling is essentially fraud. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2011, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/89 "2011-07-10T08:19:18Z")
Even if the compensation is ambiguous, and it really isn’t unless they are guaranteeing you to win all the items, the terms of entering the contest aren’t. Unambiguous conditions: Vasectomy Unambiguous prizes: Vasectomy for free. Potentially ambiguous prizes: 1. cars, blenders, other shit. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2011, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/90 "2011-07-10T08:40:32Z")
Oh come on. We arn’t talking about sending kids into the coal mines. Spending a few weeks of the year planting and harvesting along with your family is not exploitation. All the former shepard boys I know have good memories of the time- which is involves hanging around wide open fields with a gang of your friends, and has the same connatations that summer vacation has for us. Sure, it’s not ideal. But it’s not a life of unending hell. It’s just life. In the US, family farms have exemptions from child labor laws. And remember what summer vacation is really for? I defend “these people” because I expect them to defend me when they get told that Americans are violent, our women are all prostitutes, and we care only about money and don’t love our families. That is what friends do. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2011, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/91 "2011-07-10T11:51:02Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > That the compensation for being asked to have a vasectomy is unambiguously capable of being understood (I have other modifiers that are consistent with what **Der Trihs** stated in his first post, but in this precise circumstance they are just the other reasons why this context is unethical). So yeah you have it. The only serious difference between you and I is that I think offering the contract in the context of gambling is essentially fraud. So why aren’t you falling all over yourself to accept offers in the context of gambling? It’s almost as if you’re somehow able to analyze such offers and react accordingly; what explains your borderline magical level of understanding? ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2011, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/92 "2011-07-10T23:46:27Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Even if the compensation is ambiguous, and it really isn’t unless they are guaranteeing you to win all the items, the terms of entering the contest aren’t. > > Unambiguous conditions: > Vasectomy > > Unambiguous prizes: > Vasectomy for free. > > Potentially ambiguous prizes: > > 1. cars, blenders, other shit. I really don’t have new ways to say it. In judging this contest, I cannot be sure of the motivation for participating in a vasectomy because of the nature of the prizes and how they are offered. Therefore I find the contest to be unethical. Since we agree that there are available unambiguous conditions and rewards (vasectomy and it is free) then we now see at least two people can be sure of the participant’s motivation. I think we can safely extend this beyond two people and say most people, and this is enough for me to be confident that such an offering (free vasectomies!) is ethical and that I would be happy with the government’s conduct. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > So why aren’t you falling all over yourself to accept offers in the context of gambling? It’s almost as if you’re somehow able to analyze such offers and react accordingly; what explains your borderline magical level of understanding? Because I made an emotional decision to say that I will never win? This surety of losing is maybe based on experience with never winning? Maybe it is because I am generally pessimistic? Did you think I was going to say because I understand the odds? ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/93 "2011-07-11T00:57:15Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Oh come on. We arn’t talking about sending kids into the coal mines. Spending a few weeks of the year planting and harvesting along with your family is not exploitation. All the former shepard boys I know have good memories of the time- which is involves hanging around wide open fields with a gang of your friends, and has the same connatations that summer vacation has for us. Sure, it’s not ideal. But it’s not a life of unending hell. It’s just life. > > In the US, family farms have exemptions from child labor laws. And remember what summer vacation is really for? > > I defend “these people” because I expect them to defend me when they get told that Americans are violent, our women are all prostitutes, and we care only about money and don’t love our families. That is what friends do. Life on a farm is more work than a few week of the year planting and harvesting along with your family. Former Yugoslavia had plenty of family farms and even with modern agricultural techniques (tractors, pesticides, etc.), many farm kids left home for the mines as soon as they could because they considered the work easier. As for the shepard boys, I have known, their memories were freezing (it gets cold at night in the mountains), starving (couldn’t carry a lot of food even if there was enough at home to go around), and exhaustion (sheep and goats have a lot of energy). And every last one of them joyfully abandoned their flocks with the wars came because guerilla warfare was an easier way to make a living. Were their agricultural lives unending hell, no, it was better than some people had, but is was much, much, much worse than what the people only a few kilometers away in the urban areas had. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/94 "2011-07-11T02:17:24Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > So why aren’t you falling all over yourself to accept offers in the context of gambling? It’s almost as if you’re somehow able to analyze such offers and react accordingly; what explains your borderline magical level of understanding? > > Because I made an emotional decision to say that I will never win? This surety of losing is maybe based on experience with never winning? Maybe it is because I am generally pessimistic? Did you think I was going to say because I understand the odds? Well, yeah; it’s what _ **I’d** _ say if asked whether I understand the odds when doing risk-versus-rewards calculations – and despite all your protests, I can’t help but think you’d be sensible enough to accept if someone offered you a good enough deal. Would you truly refuse to gamble one dollar on a fifty-fifty coin flip with a ten-dollar payoff? On an eleven-out-of-twelve roll of the dice for a thousand-dollar payoff? And, if so, is it truly because the alleged pessimism keeps you from understanding the odds involved? I hate to say it, but consider anew Deegeea’s comment: iif one lacks _“any sense of a difference between 1:1000 and 1:1000000 odds, then please consider the possibility that you have some kind of unusual learning disability with regards to odds comprehension.”_ We don’t extrapolate from one man’s color-blindness to assume the rest of the world lives in monochrome; why should your alleged peculiarity have any relevance for consenting adults? Possibly we need an SDMB poll to see whether other folks share your ostensible aversion… ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/95 "2011-07-11T03:26:02Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, yeah; it’s what _ **I’d** _ say if asked whether I understand the odds when doing risk-versus-rewards calculations – and despite all your protests, I can’t help but think you’d be sensible enough to accept if someone offered you a good enough deal. Would you truly refuse to gamble one dollar on a fifty-fifty coin flip with a ten-dollar payoff? On an eleven-out-of-twelve roll of the dice for a thousand-dollar payoff? > > And, if so, is it truly because the alleged pessimism keeps you from understanding the odds involved? I hate to say it, but consider anew Deegeea’s comment: iif one lacks _“any sense of a difference between 1:1000 and 1:1000000 odds, then please consider the possibility that you have some kind of unusual learning disability with regards to odds comprehension.”_ We don’t extrapolate from one man’s color-blindness to assume the rest of the world lives in monochrome; why should your alleged peculiarity have any relevance for consenting adults? > > Possibly we need an SDMB poll to see whether other folks share your ostensible aversion… Why would a poll based on peoples’ inherit problems with perception illuminate anything other than such mistakes are commonplace? I am pretty comfortable saying that neither of you nor anyone else understands the odds difference between 1:1000 and 1:1000000 in anything except the most abstract of terms and so far neither of you are able to give an example that illustrates it. The reason being is that you cannot. We have lots of ways of coming up with a shorthand for these differences such as “rare” or “lucky” but those terms are about as exacting as trying to measure the difference in width between a human cell and a bacterium’s cell using a meter stick. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/96 "2011-07-11T03:46:15Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I am pretty comfortable saying that neither of you nor anyone else understands the odds difference between 1:1000 and 1:1000000 in anything except the most abstract of terms and so far neither of you are able to give an example that illustrates it. Other than that most people who play the lottery don’t mortgage the house to do so. Most don’t run down to the bank and withdraw their life savings thinking that by buying more tickets they are ensuring their winning the main prize. So, most people do understand the difference between a guaranteed prize and a chance at one. Some do, though. And if those are the ones that don’t add to the gene pool, then what is the issue? Remember, they are not being asked to give up every penny, only undergo surgery to remove their balls. Which no one is going to do lightly even if they are guaranteed a shiney new car, let alone just a chance for one no matter what the odds are. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563/97 "2011-07-11T04:13:20Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Why would a poll based on peoples’ inherit problems with perception illuminate anything other than such mistakes are commonplace? Because – as suggested by **Uzi** ’s answer – we can demonstrate that it _ **doesn’t** _ involve a mistake. I accept various offers to gamble, reject others, and still have cash in my pocket and a roof over my head; I believe I understand how the odds factor in when pondering risks and rewards, and if I were mistaken I’d be in dire straits. If you’re right about the human inability to understand beyond “rare” or “lucky”, shouldn’t people like me be worse off? If you’re wrong – such that most of us simply have a knack you claim to lack – then what hypothetical evidence could demonstrate it, other than having plenty of folks patiently explain that they modify their bets according to the odds and get the results (a) I’d expect, but (b) you wouldn’t expect? > [@](#): > > I am pretty comfortable saying that neither of you nor anyone else understands the odds difference between 1:1000 and 1:1000000 in anything except the most abstract of terms and so far neither of you are able to give an example that illustrates it. The reason being is that you cannot. We have lots of ways of coming up with a shorthand for these differences such as “rare” or “lucky” but those terms are about as exacting as trying to measure the difference in width between a human cell and a bacterium’s cell using a meter stick. I’m not sure the terms are _ **that** _ abstract; like I’d said, I’d say “yes” to one offer and “no” to another if the ante and the payoff remained the same while the former odds replaced the latter ones – sure as that wouldn’t be the case with anything like unto _meter-stick imprecision at the cellular level_ or whatever. People don’t limit themselves to “rare” or “lucky”; they believe they see a difference when the odds get a thousand times better or worse, gamble accordingly, and – well, does reality bear them out, or doesn’t it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bribing-people-to-sterilise-themselves-part-2-get-the-snip-win-a-blender-says-india/587563.md?page=4)