Timely Questions for Reverend Harold Camping

Dear Reverend Harold Camping:

You must be very busy, what with the Rapture coming tomorrow and all, but I’m hoping for just a minute of your time. Actually “a minute of your time” is exactly what I want to ask you about. Because what’s really extraordinarily clever about your Bible calculations is that you’ve not only figured out God’s super-secret plan to Rapture the Earth on May 21, 2011, but also that he’s going to do it one time zone at a time. According to press accounts of your discovery:

the massive doomsday earthquake will start at the International Date Line before moving west. New Zealand . . . will get hit first – at 6 p.m. local time. And then that wave of destruction will roll around the world, wreaking havoc at 6 p.m. in each time zone.

Not only was it smart of God to come up with that cool plan for phased destruction--I mean, Rapturing the whole Earth at once would be kind of unwieldy, especially the Christian parts where there are so many souls to collect--but it’s especially neat how he wrote down the whole plan in code all those thousands of years ago in the Bible. Pretty funny that he tried to throw us off the trail with that whole “but of that day and hour knoweth no man.” He sure fooled me, but he didn’t fool Harold Camping!

I do have a couple of questions, though.

No, I’m not going to ask “what about Daylight Saving Time.” Please. Obviously because God knows everything, he knew that we humans were going to invent Daylight Saving Time, so he factored that into his Bible code.

And same goes for the whole time zones / standard time concept. Sure, in Biblical times and for practically all of human history time was reckoned locally based on the position of the Sun. But again, I’m sure God foresaw that one day there would be railroads, telegraphs, and a corresponding need for uniformity. And because His plan was to Rapture Boston and Cincinnati at exactly the same moment, instead of the 52 minutes apart that 6 p.m. would occur in those cities if we still used “Local Apparent Solar Time” like Abraham and Jesus, God just coded that into the Bible, too.

But here’s the thing. Not to second-guess God or anything, but actually doing it the old fashioned way would kind of make more sense. Because you can totally see how a continuously moving wave of destruction, travelling at an equatorial velocity of just over 1500 feet per second so as to hit each spot at “true” 6 p.m., would work.

Whereas the whole-time-zones-at-a-time model presents some difficulties. Take for example a town that straddles the Texas / New Mexico border. When the Doomsday earthquake flattens everything on the Texas side, will it be made up of some kind of special shockwaves that know to stop at the state line? And what if it turns out that I’m one of the saved, and I get Raptured while straddling the border? Do I risk the right half of my soul being “left behind” for an hour?

And actually, speaking of Daylight Saving Time, did God make clear how your calculations should deal with places that don’t observe it? Like if I’m in Arizona do I get an extra hour, even though Armageddon is already in full swing due North in Utah? But if I step onto the Navajo reservation, which does observe Daylight Saving Time, then I’m toast? What if I’m a member of the Hopi nation, so my land is within the Navajo reservation, but my tribe keeps with the rest of Arizona in not observing Daylight Saving Time? Supposing I’m off the reservation at 5:15, and I want to get home before the Rapture to make sure I didn’t leave the oven on? Will God understand that I’m only passing through Navajo land to get to the Hopi section, and give me the extra 45 minutes?

Even apart from Daylight Saving issues, it seems like the Rapture is going to have to do some jumping around. If you look at a world time zone map, it’s pretty complicated. For all kinds of political reasons you’ve got places where it can be 6 p.m. already even though somewhere to the East still calls it 5 p.m. (Or 5:30 or even 5:15.)

And then you’ve got places like Kashmir, where no one can agree whether it’s part of India (GMT + 5:30) or Pakistan (GMT + 5:00). Do the Hindus get Raptured half an hour before the Muslims? I mean, I understand they’re all going to Hell anyway because they haven’t accepted Jesus, but it would be useful to know.

Also what about at the South Pole? By convention, Amundsen Scott Station uses New Zealand time, but technically speaking the Pole is in every time zone. From what I’ve heard, that place can become a den of iniquity for the “winter-over” crew, owing to the gender imbalance and prolonged isolation in darkness.  So the schedule on which their souls will be called to account is not just an academic question.

And of course there’s the International Space Station to consider. Here we see why it was definitely smart for God to choose standard instead of solar time. Can you imagine if he had to Rapture the astronauts 16 times in one day?! My only question is whether He’ll use Greenwich Mean Time, which the station normally follows, or adjust for the crew’s current temporary shift to Space Shuttle Endeavour’s Mission Elapsed Time. Your Bible calculations take that into account, right?

I would appreciate the courtesy of a prompt response to these questions, preferably by 6 p.m. tomorrow. 6 p.m. my time, I mean.

Post-Polling Pornucopia

It’s time for another Holy Prepuce! Research Update, where the cutting edge of academic endeavor is distilled, digested, and regurgitated for your special edification. Today’s offering: “Changes in Pornography-Seeking Behaviors Following Political Elections: An Examination of the Challenge Hypothesis,” Evolution & Human Behavior 31 (2010): 442-446. In this article, authors Patrick & Charlotte Markey answer the burning question of whether backers of successful political candidates consume more internet pornography post-election than do supporters of losing candidates.

The authors begin with some background about the “Challenge Hypothesis,” which suggests that “testosterone levels in males tend to rise during competition . . . [to] support various reproductive behaviors . . . . Interestingly, individuals do not even have to be directly involved in a competition for their testosterone levels to be affected; spectators can experience similar changes. . . .”

The effect has been documented among male supporters of winning sports teams. A recent study also “found that following the 2008 US presidential election men who voted for the winning candidate (Barack Obama) had higher testosterone levels after the election than men who voted for a losing candidate.”

Thus, the authors hypothesize, “[a] sexual behavior that might shift following the winning or losing of a competition is the seeking of visual–sexual stimulation (e.g., pornography),” and following an election we should expect to see higher rates of pornography seeking in states that backed the winning side.

As it happens, the authors tell us, pornography is custom-made for the male brain:

Men’s interest in pornography is typically attributed to men’s evolved interest in sexual variety and multiple partners. As noted [in prior research], men tend to fantasize about a place where “sex is sheer lust and physical gratification, devoid of more tender feelings and encumbering relationships, in which women are always aroused, or at least easily arousable, and ultimately are always willing.”

And where is that special man-place? Why in the magical world of porn, of course, which--as helpfully explained for those (presumably female) readers unschooled in the genre--“typically depicts women engaging in casual sex without investment.”

For those wishing to experience this “pornography” for ourselves, the authors explain that it is available in “a variety of media, ranging from books, magazines, film and video,” but advise that “however, currently, one of the most prevalent means of distributing pornography is the internet.” Readers unfamiliar with technical matters are offered the further suggestions that “[b]y simply typing a few keywords into a search engine (e.g., Google) it is extremely easy to search for pornography on the internet,” and “[f]or example, a person might type in the word ‘porn’ or ‘sex’ into the Google search engine when attempting to find pornography.”

The authors next detail their research methods, which utilize Google Trends data from the 2004, 2006, and 2008 US elections, data which can be drilled down on a state-by-state basis to determine the frequency of particular searches in a given time period:

The internet service WordTracker was used to determine which keywords individuals tend to use to search for pornography. . . by first providing WordTracker with a seed word relevant to pornography. For the current study the researchers simply used the word “porn.” WordTracker then searched the top 100 websites that rank highest on search engines for the term “porn” and extract[ed] additional keywords utilized by these sites. From this analysis, the 10 most frequently occurring, non-domain-specific, pornography keywords (e.g., “xvideos,” “boobs,” “tits,” etc.) were selected for the current study. . . . Google Trends was then utilized to determine the popularity of these pornography keywords.

And the results?

[T]he week after the 2004 presidential election Red states (i.e., the states that voted for the winner of the election) had marginally higher RSVIs [relative search volume indices] for pornography keywords than Blue states . . . . [T]he week after the 2008 presidential election Blue states (i.e., the states that voted for the winner of the election) had significantly higher RSVIs for pornography keywords than Red states . . . . [For the 2006 mid-term election], a regression analysis was conducted to examine whether or not traditionally Blue states (coded 2) had higher RSVI scores than swing states (coded 1) which had higher RSVI scores than traditionally Red states (coded 0). Consistent with the . . . hypothesis, a significant linear trend was found.

A key purpose of Holy Prepuce Research Update is to stimulate ongoing inquiry. For that reason I hope some among my readership will take up the authors’ exhortation for further research directed at some limitations of their study.

One such limitation is that backers of winning candidates

might have simply been happier and more likely to desire sex . . . [i]n other words, . . . changes in voters’ moods rather than testosterone levels [may] explain the observed changes in pornography-seeking behaviors[, a]lthough . . . previous research is somewhat mixed as to the relations between mood, interest in pornography, and masturbation.

Hence, “[i]t is hoped that future research might provide a more complete understanding of the mediators that explain why pornography-seeking behaviors tend to change following political elections.”

Another limitation is that Google Trends does not track the gender of users, and so it “would be informative for future researchers to utilize a different methodology that allows for the assessment of gender.” Nevertheless,

[g]iven the frequency that males use the internet to search for pornography . . . and the keywords used in the current study to operationally define pornography searchers (e.g., “boobs,” “tits,” etc.), it seems likely that the observed findings were driven by males.

And if I may suggest some avenues of further investigation myself: First, although revealing only “xvideos,” “boobs,” and “tits,” the article promises that “[a] complete list of the 10 keywords utilized for the current research is available from the first author.” Professor Markey may be reached through his laboratory at Villanova University, so please feel free to ask him for the remaining seven.

Second, as a resident of a blue state, I am proud to note that although red-staters displayed “marginally” higher pornography-seeking behavior after Bush’s 2004 reelection, we blue-staters delivered a “significantly” higher number of porn searches following Obama’s win in 2008. I theorize the following relationship: voting Democratic is but one manifestation of our depraved and comprehensive libertinism. Prospective testers of this hypothesis are invited out here to Gomorrah for a site visit.

The Monty Hall Problem Meets The Bachelorette

Last Monday evening inexplicably found the Holy Prepuce attending a Bachelorette viewing party. In a turn of events that almost merited its billing as "the most dramatic Final Rose Ceremony ever," previously-eliminated bachelor Reid Rosenthal returned unexpectedly to the program.

Reid's arrival greatly surprised bachelorette Jillian Harris, who had just dispatched finalist Kiptyn Locke and was about to declare her love for alpha male Ed Swiderski. (In the post-feminist world of reality television, the distaff may choose its betrothed, even sampling candidates' sexual talents along the way, but the marriage proposal must come from the spear.)

My fellow viewers expressed differing views as to whether Jillian should dump Ed for Reid. I had no opinion as to the gentlemen's relative merits, having seen too few episodes to form one, and was disappointed at my inability to participate in the exercise.

But then, I had a brainwave: Jillian must switch. Why? The Monty Hall Problem, of course.

Imagine that Jillian is a contestant on Let's Make a Deal. The host, Monty Hall, shows her three doors, and tells her there is car behind one of them. Behind the other two are goats. (As a child, I often wondered whether losing Let's Make a Deal contestants were required to take home the livestock, and if so, whether they took proper care of it.)

Jillian chooses door #1. Monty, who knows where the car is, opens door #3, revealing a goat. Monty now gives Jillian the options of standing by her selection of door #1 or switching to door #2. Assume that under the rules of the show, Monty must always open an unpicked door, must only reveal a goat (not the car) in doing so, and, regardless of where the car is, must always offer the opportunity to switch doors. Assume also that when Monty has a choice of doors to open--i.e. when both unpicked doors contain goats--he is required to choose at random.

The question: should Jillian stay with door #1, should she switch to door #2, or does it make no difference? The answer, which nearly everyone gets wrong, is that she should switch to door #2. Doing so doubles her chance of winning the car.

People usually get this wrong because they remain fixated on the one-in-three a priori odds of the car being behind any particular door. Opening a door doesn't change where the car is, they reason, so the relative odds of it being behind #1 or #2 remain what they were: even.

The conclusion that switching makes no difference fails to recognize the conditional probabilities that kick in with the new information conveyed by Monty's choice. Formal explanations are discussed here, but put simply, where a contestant has chosen door #1, Monty has only a 50/50 likelihood of opening door #3 if the car is behind door #1, but must open door #3 if the car is behind door #2. Hence, Monty's choice to open door #3 is twice as likely to signify a car behind door #2 as it is to signify a car behind door #1.

On The Bachelorette Jillian isn't trying to pick a car, she's trying to pick the perfect husband. But unlike in normal life, where she would have the opportunity to choose from many men encountered over a number of years, her choice on The Bachelorette is subject to Let's Make a Deal-like constraints. A contestant on Let's Make a Deal can't go hunting for free cars wherever and whenever she wants, she must take her chances right now, with the three doors before her.

For the sake of analysis, let's take the final two Bachelorette episodes as a single "game." Thus, we'll treat Jillian's decisions to eliminate Reid and Kiptyn as a single event, i.e., the selection of Ed out of three possible suitors.

We're allowed to do this because of my next assumption, which is that Jillian's conscious mind has become confused. It did an OK job of whittling the field of bachelors down to three, but the exhausting whirlwind of travel, green-room liquor, and sudden stardom has negated its ability to choose intelligently among the finalists. Jillian's selection of Ed is based on irrelevant heuristics, as was the order in which she eliminated Reid and Kiptyn.

Assume also that Jillian's subconscious mind is unaffected; that it wants what's best for Jillian and knows which one of the three men is right for her. But being subconscious, it can't fully direct Jillian's decisions. It can only cause her to consider, or not consider, certain courses of action.

Until Reid shows up, Jillian's conscious mind has been driving her decisions. The rules of The Bachelorette require that she eliminate a prescribed number of bachelors in each formalized Rose Ceremony, and she has dutifully complied. But with Reid's return at the emotional climax of the series, the producers have changed the rules unexpectedly. Jillian's guard is down, and her subconscious mind seizes the opportunity: it makes Jillian consider taking Reid back.

Jillian's subconscious mind is Monty Hall. Jillian thought she had made a one-time choice (Ed) among three "doors." Her subconscious has presented her with a second chance at one of the "doors" (Reid) after exposing the third "door" (Kiptyn) as a "goat."

How do we know that Kiptyn is a goat? Let's make another assumption here: out of fairness, the same Bachelorette producers who changed the rules to permit Jillian a second chance at Reid would also allow her a second chance at Kiptyn. In other words, when Reid walked onto the set, Jillian could have said, "I know I don't want Reid, so if I get a do-over, I'll think about using it on Kiptyn." (Given the Molly / Melissa switch on the last Bachelor, the assumption is not unreasonable.) Jillian's subconscious thus has the power to "open" either Reid or Kiptyn by causing Jillian not to reconsider him. And just as Monty Hall is not permitted to eliminate the car, presumably Jillian's subconscious isn't going to "open" the perfect husband and subject Jillian to the pointless cruelty of choosing between goats. Jillian doesn't think about a Kiptyn do-over; Kiptyn is "opened"; ergo Kiptyn is a goat.

A final assumption: Reid's reappearance is sufficiently destabilizing that it compels Jillian at least to consider dumping Ed. Jillian's subconscious can't force her to think of no one but Ed, even if it believes that he is the perfect husband. Jillian's conscious mind must make the choice between Ed and Reid.

So, should Jillian switch to Reid? The Monty Hall Problem tells us yes. Given Jillian's initial choice of Ed and Reid's return, it is two to one that the "opening" of Kiptyn signifies that Reid is the "car"--the perfect husband.

Unfortunately (SPOILER ALERT, in case the finale is still queued on your TiVo), Jillian does not switch, and is now engaged to Ed. She has settled for an ill-suited marriage, life's ultimate game of Let's Make a Deal.

This has been the nerdiest Rose Ceremony ever.

Note to Facebook readers: If you reached this post by following a link from the Facebook profile of HP!'s secret identity, please note that this is the last blog post that I will be linking to my profile. To keep my blog in your Facebook "Stream," please visit the new HP! Facebook page and click on "Become a Fan." If you do, you will continue receiving the content you demand on topics such as religion, culture, lunatic kidnapping plots, game shows, and smut. An explanation of why I'm re-anonymizing the blog and making it "opt-in" is on the new page.

Gay Teen Monster Truck Driving Curfews

The Holy Prepuce never expected to use "irony" and "monster trucks" in the same sentence, but how's this? Following January 19th's fatal accident at the Tacoma, Washington Monster Jam, rival monster truck promoter George Eisenhart dismissed safety concerns about his upcoming Motor Sports Monster Truck & Thrill Show, telling Madison, Wisconsin's WKOW "This is our 16th year, and I wish I had a big piece of wood to knock on right now, but we have not had an incident besides a gal slipping in the aisle at another location." Days later, Eisenhart was crushed to death by a monster truck.

While I'm busy making light of vehicular tragedies, I have to say that although Allstate's Parent-Teen Driving Contract may be an excellent idea, I wonder how an organization whose business depends on the sensible use of statistics could attempt to pass off the following:


Assuming that the average teen is awake no more than 18 hours per day, warning that half of all fatal accidents happen in a 9-hour period is equivalent to grousing that 40% of workplace absenteeism occurs on Mondays and Fridays. And when we factor in that most teens spend a good part of their other 9 waking hours in school, we are led to the inescapable conclusion that 3PM to Midnight is a remarkably safe time to drive. The obvious solution is immediate repeal of teen driving curfews nationwide, so that teens can take care of essential business at night and stay off the road during the 8AM bloodbath.

If an insurance company can't manage the non-risible use of statistics, there is little hope for the rest of us. I am reminded of my college's gay & lesbian student association, which--I swear to God--ran simultaneous poster campaigns proclaiming "One in Ten People Is Gay" and "Two-Thirds of Child Molesters Are Straight."

Smartass Gets a Toaster

Mrs. P and I recently became proud owners of a T-Fal Avante Deluxe two-slice apparatus, and as a public service I thought I would reproduce, with annotations, portions of the instruction manual:

After a week of staring expectantly at that cardboard box, hoping for breakfast, I'm glad I finally consulted the instructions.

What?! And I bet you're going to tell me this "bread" is "sold separately."

But... but... you just told me I had to...?!

Not strictly an "instruction" (unless you are the toaster), but reassuring nonetheless.

This is generally how it works with toasters on Planet Earth, yes.

But how am I going to clean this fellow if I can't put him under the faucet? Wait, I know: the dishwasher!

Damn. Are you sure?


Curses!

This requirement excludes two of the three persons in my household.

toast \'tōst\ v.t.: to render (as bread) crisp, hot, and brown via a process of heating and drying.

Welcome Comics Curmudgeon Readers!

Wow--the Comics Curmudgeon gives me one shout-out for my Anti-Anthony Facebook Flair, and Holy Prepuce receives over 200 hits by 11AM! That's almost as many hits as I get in an entire weekend from Saudi Arabian users Googling "gay prepuce."

The Facebook links on the Comics Curmudgeon post seem to work for some readers and not others (apparently something to do with the transition to "New Facebook"); alternate links that should work are here and here.

Now that you've found your way to Holy Prepuce, please take a look around, maybe try out the random toke or topic links at left, and if you enjoy HP's sensibilities, please consider subscribing to the feed or joining the email list!

Hydrothermal Vent Community as Metaphor

In case you were under the impression that life had any particular meaning or unifying purpose, consider this: scattered throughout the Earth's oceans are hydrothermal vents, underwater geysers spewing forth superheated water at temperatures approaching 400 degrees C. Geologic structures known as "chimneys" form as minerals precipitate from vented fluids and come in contact with ocean waters. And on these chimneys develop complex ecosystems of highly-adapted species, ranging from chemosynthetic bacteria to giant tube worms.

Such organisms differ drastically from neighbors even short distances away, because the typical bottom-dweller is adapted to temperatures around 0 C and--rather like us--to water that is not suffused with hydrogen sulfide. Travel between distant hydrothermal vents is impossible for many species, which cannot tolerate the frigid water and lack of chemosynthetic materials. Hence, some chimneys are isolated enough that they have become virtual Galápagos islands of the deep--closed communities of genetically-isolated species found only in that particular ecosystem.

So one of these vent communities can form and operate more or less independently for eons. Bacteria covert hydrogen sulfide and methane into organic compounds (the undersea equivalent of photosynthesis) from within their symbiotic tube worm and giant mollusk hosts, small crustaceans eat the bacteria, larger crustaceans eat the smaller crustaceans, and the cycle of life goes on.

But it turns out that hydrothermal vents operate more or less at the whim of sub-seafloor volcanic systems. So all it takes is one undersea volcanic eruption to divert the flow of magma and shut down the vent overnight. And then it's all over for the vent community--everybody's dead within days. Kind of makes you think.

Kidney Swap Taxation

Just in case you were wondering what it is we lawyers think about all day, have a look at this article by Villanova Law Professor James Maule.

It seems that a recent trend among transplant surgeons is to arrange "kidney swaps" among couples who are themselves blood-group incompatible.

The scheme works something like this: let's say Stuart and Frank, strangers to each other, each need a kidney. Stuart's wife Sally and Frank's wife Franny are willing donors, but can't give a kidney to their husbands because of blood group mismatches. Franny, however, is the correct blood group for Stuart, and Sally is the correct blood group for Frank. So the transplant program matches up the two couples, sticks Franny's kidney into Stuart and Sally's kidney into Frank, and everyone goes home happy. It's an innovative solution, not without ethical question marks, but a pretty cool idea all around.

And while the doctors are busy saving lives, what are we lawyers up to? Why nothing less important than figuring out whether the IRS should assess income tax on the exchange!

Indeed, Professor Maule believes the operation should be taxable:

These are not gifts, because each has conditioned donation on getting something in return. Each has a basis of zero in the exchanged kidney. Each has an amount realized equal to the fair market value of a kidney. The like-kind nonrecognition rules do not apply because it's not a trade, business, or investment activity. No other non-recognition provisions are relevant. There's no exclusion applicable to the transaction. The lack of cash is not an obstacle to the taxation of bartered exchanges. . . . There's no charitable contribution deduction because no charity receives the kidneys. The substance over form doctrine treats the exchange as a swap of kidneys between the two women, each then making a gift to her husband.

Lest you think tax professors completely heartless, you will be relieved to know that Maule does offer some hope for these patients-cum-entrepreneurs: they should be able to deduct the medical expenses from the transplant! So we can all enjoy Christmas this year after all, as long as we do not forget (as Maule takes care to remind us), that such expenses may be written off only insofar as they exceed 7.5% of adjusted gross income.

Walking Directions

Ask.com has been promoting itself as a better alternative to Google, and while I cannot agree entirely, I must share one feature that I adore: the ability to toggle between driving and walking directions in the maps utility.

This feature is of course useful for getting around cities, since pedestrians need not obey one-way signs but have difficulty merging onto the expressway. But the real beauty of this option is that the programmers have not imposed any obvious limits on distance. Fancy a stroll from D.C. to New York? Start out towards E St. NW, amble along the Bear Mountain State Parkway, and 135 hours later grab a knish at the corner of Broadway and Chambers. Not ready to rest? Another 98 hours will have you walking the Freedom trail in Boston, after a scenic tour of the Pioneer Valley. And if you've remembered your passport, you can promener onward to lovely Montréal in just under 144 more hours, or to Toronto in 193.

It's just one more way that the Internet can help us beat our dependence on foreign oil!

Good News! The Odds Are 2 in 3 That You Are Not a Simulation.

Just in case you thought you had finally come to grips with reality, here's something disturbing to think about: what are the chances that you are in fact living, Matrix-style, in a computer simulation of the programmers' distant past? Oxford philosophy wunderkind Nick Bostrom believes they are as high as 33%.

In "Are You Living In A Computer Simulation?" Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255 (2003), Bostrom reasons that at least one of the following three propositions (paraphrased somewhat by me) must be true:

(1) It is almost certain that a society like ours would never develop sufficient technology to create "ancestor simulations" inhabited by conscious simulated minds.

(2) Any society capable of running such simulations is extremely unlikely to run them.

(3) You are almost certainly living in a simulation.

Why? In essence, Bostrom hypothesizes that a technology capable of running such simulations at all would be capable of running an astronomically large number of them. Furthermore, if such simulations are accurate representations of their creators' precursor societies, their simulated inhabitants will of necessity develop the virtual technology to create their own ancestor simulations, which will in turn spawn their own simulations and so on, subject only to the computational constraints of the machine on which the first-order simulation is running.

Thus, if such simulations have ever been or will ever be created (i.e. if propositions (1) and (2) are false), the minds living in simulated pasts would vastly outnumber the "actual" minds living in their "true" presents. Consequently, the odds would be very strong that yours is one of the simulated minds.

One could suppose superficially that, even if (1) and (2) are false, you could be living in an "actual" present wherein the technology to simulate minds has not yet been invented. But because the number of simulated minds taken across all of time will likely exceed the number of actual minds--and because you in principle have no means of distinguishing between an "actual" present and a simulated past that you experience as the present--the odds of yours being one of the comparatively few "actual" minds to experience reality the first time through are pretty long.

So how likely is it that propositions (1) and (2) are false? That is, how likely is it that we are living in a simulation? Bostrom believes that we lack sufficient information to choose meaningfully among the three propositions. We cannot at this point predict whether a society on its way to developing the necessary technology would most likely destroy itself in the process, e.g. via a doomsday weapon. We also cannot predict whether the social forces that would preclude the running of ancestor simulations--e.g. a civilization-wide lack of interest or a universal agreement on the immorality of doing so--are likely to develop in a society otherwise capable of running them. Bostrom notes that in this latter case the agreement (or enforcement against those who disagree) would have to be nearly universal, since even a very small number of nonconforming individuals would be sufficient to create an astronomically large number of simulations.

Given our present ignorance, Bostrom suggests that we have little choice but to assign equal likelihood to each proposition. Thus, assuming Bostrom's reasoning to be sound, the odds are about one in three that you are living in a computer simulation. Bostrom since has stated that he personally believes the odds to be around 20% because he slightly favors the truth of proposition (2), but stresses that this is a matter of subjective belief. Based on the information currently available to us, he proposes, we have no strong evidence for or against any of the three hypotheses and must assign them equal credence.

Fortunately, Bostram thinks that even if you are living in a computer simulation you don't have to do much about it. With a few subtle exceptions, an ersatz reality presents no significant operational differences from the genuine article. This should be a relief if you were worried that you weren't up to messianic adventure involving jujitsu, automatic weapons, and two lame sequels.

01:02:03 04/05/06

The time and date in three seconds will be 01:02:03 04/05/06. That's so badass.

Deal Or No Deal

How much do you love the new American version of the international hit “Deal or No Deal?” Do you watch it as I do, with a calculator in hand, computing the expected value and predicting bank offers on the fly? Do you marvel how the program showcases behavioral economics in action, demonstrating that the statistically “best” choice—rejecting any bank offer that does not meet or exceed the expected value of the player’s case—is not generally the correct choice in light of risk aversion and the diminishing marginal utility of money?

No? Well, you may think that makes me cooler than you, and in a way it does, but neither of us is as cool as the team of Dutch economists who have analyzed the show in depth and published a paper entitled Deal or No Deal? Decision Making Under Risk in a Large-Payoff Game Show.

Here is the abstract of their paper:

The popular television game show “Deal or No Deal” offers a unique opportunity for analyzing decision making under risk: it involves very large and wide-ranging stakes, simple stop-go decisions that require minimal skill, knowledge or strategy and near-certainty about the probability distribution. Based on a panel data set of the choices of contestants in all game rounds of 53 episodes from Australia and the Netherlands, we find an average Arrow-Pratt coefficient of relative risk aversion (RRA) between roughly 1 and 2 for initial wealth levels between €0 and €50,000 and assuming full rationality. Risk aversion is lower if we allow for myopic or hyperopic framing. The RRA differs substantially across the contestants and some even exhibit risk seeking behavior. The cross-sectional differences in RRA can be explained in large part by the previous outcomes experienced by the contestants during the game. Most notably, consistent with the “break-even effect”, the RRA strongly decreases following earlier losses and risk seeking arises after large losses.