I'll fill it in as soon as I figure out how the hell more than two of those can possably apply to you (and even then, one of those is a stretch). Or rather, that I can describe as your weaknesses.
Well, filled in, but three of those were because I had to pick stuff. Your cynicism is one of your strengths, and both passive and inflexable are there as 'well, it does say however slight' and if it wasn't a 'pick from this list' they would certainly not be on there. The intollerent is a stretch as I already mentioned and, well, I've seen your attitude towards high-risk-seekers (especially those who are financial risk seekers) in pure mathematical contexts. Which only seems to prevail to the context that they took the risk, so as I say, that was a stretch.
And there have been some people who have been too risk-averse even for my liking. Glen springs to mind; to a certain extent so does Jessica, though I think that if she'd had anything else in her box we'd have forgotten about her in days. (And at the time, I felt it was an offer worth considering at the very least. My circumstances in mid-November may have affected this.)
Perhaps their utility curves are just very different to mine. The two extreme examples of James (of 'giving up job for a tenner' infamy) and Julie (and it's partly down to me that we're not talking about Julie in the same context as Glen and Jessica) make perfect sense. (I mention James instead of, say, Madie or John G because James has since mentioned information that makes his decision justifiable. And in all honesty it wasn't a massive mistake, he just happened to hit the 10% chance of ultimate disaster.)
Hi! I friended you back, Sir QK. And by the way, I *heart* your Jeopardy icon. I was watching on that infamous night, and I had the same expression as she did.
Haha :) I'm actually from the UK, but being a bit of a dorky geek type (and having friends who are big game show fans too) I did get to hear about Ken quite a lot :) And that expression is priceless.
I've seen a video clip of that Final Jeopardy! several times now, and can't ever see it without thinking that Nancy should have wagered $0; assuming Ken wagered $5601 to cover Nancy doubling her money (which he did) a $0 wager from Nancy (or indeed any wager less than $1201) would have meant that an incorrect response from Ken would have caused Nancy to win even if she was incorrect too. Of course, if Ken saw that coming, he'd have wagered $0 too...
(Amusingly, we had a UK game show, 100% - ridiculously simple and cheap, 100 rapid-fire questions in 30 minutes and nothing else - in which one contestant won 75 games in a row back in the late 1990s. Unfortunately for him this was a daytime show on a then-tiny station, Channel 5 (now known as five) and the prize for winning each game... a flat £100. Yes, £100. (Incidentally, the producers
( ... )
Well then, if this isn't a coincidence... I was just chatting with a friend the other day about how neither of us had ever met anyone with Asperger's... and here you are.
Yeah, we definitely need links to those songs. I want to hear.
Comments 8
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Perhaps their utility curves are just very different to mine. The two extreme examples of James (of 'giving up job for a tenner' infamy) and Julie (and it's partly down to me that we're not talking about Julie in the same context as Glen and Jessica) make perfect sense. (I mention James instead of, say, Madie or John G because James has since mentioned information that makes his decision justifiable. And in all honesty it wasn't a massive mistake, he just happened to hit the 10% chance of ultimate disaster.)
Reply
Reply
I've seen a video clip of that Final Jeopardy! several times now, and can't ever see it without thinking that Nancy should have wagered $0; assuming Ken wagered $5601 to cover Nancy doubling her money (which he did) a $0 wager from Nancy (or indeed any wager less than $1201) would have meant that an incorrect response from Ken would have caused Nancy to win even if she was incorrect too. Of course, if Ken saw that coming, he'd have wagered $0 too...
(Amusingly, we had a UK game show, 100% - ridiculously simple and cheap, 100 rapid-fire questions in 30 minutes and nothing else - in which one contestant won 75 games in a row back in the late 1990s. Unfortunately for him this was a daytime show on a then-tiny station, Channel 5 (now known as five) and the prize for winning each game... a flat £100. Yes, £100. (Incidentally, the producers ( ... )
Reply
Yeah, we definitely need links to those songs. I want to hear.
Reply
...and wow, that is a crazy coincidence. *resists urge to quote Alanis Morrisette* Nice to see you.
Reply
Leave a comment