Test of risk assessment
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
From: If you're not braking or accelerating you're wasting time.
The cheese one:
If you use 4 cuts through the cheese on one side of the cube you will have a grid like a noughts & crosses grid i.e. 9 equal squares. You then turn it on its side & cut through what are effectively 9 oblongs,
using 2 cuts equi-distant to make thirds. 9 x 3 = 27
If you use 4 cuts through the cheese on one side of the cube you will have a grid like a noughts & crosses grid i.e. 9 equal squares. You then turn it on its side & cut through what are effectively 9 oblongs,
using 2 cuts equi-distant to make thirds. 9 x 3 = 27
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,623
Likes: 1
From: ....
Here's one.
You have one computer.
You have one internet car based forum.
How many spacktards does it take to answer stupid quizzes?
No cheating, now!
(I don't know the answer - I'll leave it up to you lot)
You have one computer.
You have one internet car based forum.
How many spacktards does it take to answer stupid quizzes?
No cheating, now!
(I don't know the answer - I'll leave it up to you lot)
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,278
Likes: 0
How about this one.
You have a pair of old fashioned scales.
You also have a concrete lump weighing 40lbs.
You can break the lump into four pieces.
How heavy does each piece need to be to enable you to use the scales to weigh any weight from 1lb to 40lb (in 1lb increments).
You have a pair of old fashioned scales.
You also have a concrete lump weighing 40lbs.
You can break the lump into four pieces.
How heavy does each piece need to be to enable you to use the scales to weigh any weight from 1lb to 40lb (in 1lb increments).
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,278
Likes: 0
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 15,634
Likes: 22
From: K
I rationalised it by changing the story to someone fatally shooting 1 in a thousand people, but has a success rate of 95%
he shoots you - what are you chances of survival
i suppose the confusion comes in thinking that a disease with a death rate of 1 in a thousand is your "risk" in dying from the disease
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
If the disease kills everyone who catches it, and you're told you have a 95% chance of having it, then there's a 95% chance you'll die. The prevalence of the disease across the general population doesn't matter. But that's NOT what a "95% accurate" test means.
If you take the test and are healthy, there's still a 5% chance that the test will tell you that you have the disease - and that's much more likely then you actually having the disease.
There are four cases to consider:
a) you are healthy, and the test says so. p=0.999*0.95 = 0.94905
b) you are diseased, and the test says so. p=0.001*0.95 = 0.00095
c) you are healthy, but the test is wrong. p=0.999*0.05 = 0.04995
d) you are diseased, but the test is wrong. p=0.001*0.05 = 0.00005
(Sanity check: 0.94905 + 0.00095 + 0.04995 + 0.00005 = 1)
You're told that the test is positive, so you're in (b) or (c). You hope for c, of course, and the chance you're in the b group is 0.00095 / (0.00095+0.04995) = 0.01866, or about 1 in 54.
If you take the test and are healthy, there's still a 5% chance that the test will tell you that you have the disease - and that's much more likely then you actually having the disease.
There are four cases to consider:
a) you are healthy, and the test says so. p=0.999*0.95 = 0.94905
b) you are diseased, and the test says so. p=0.001*0.95 = 0.00095
c) you are healthy, but the test is wrong. p=0.999*0.05 = 0.04995
d) you are diseased, but the test is wrong. p=0.001*0.05 = 0.00005
(Sanity check: 0.94905 + 0.00095 + 0.04995 + 0.00005 = 1)
You're told that the test is positive, so you're in (b) or (c). You hope for c, of course, and the chance you're in the b group is 0.00095 / (0.00095+0.04995) = 0.01866, or about 1 in 54.
Last edited by tony de wonderful; Jan 7, 2011 at 10:52 AM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
I came across this as a simple test of the ability of bankers to assess risk - indeed not just bankers, any typical human!
There is a fatal disease that kills 1 in 1000
A test has been developed that is 95% accurate.
Your doctor tells you that your test is positive.
What are your chances of surviving?
There is a fatal disease that kills 1 in 1000
A test has been developed that is 95% accurate.
Your doctor tells you that your test is positive.
What are your chances of surviving?
Basically a positive makes your chances of dying 1 in 50 as opposed to 1 in 1000.
It was massively underestimated. I have just been reading about one of the models they used - they calculated that the chance of a 20% fall in property prices, nationally in the US, would only happen as a once in 10 trillion year risk.
Clearly no one actually stepped outside the darkened room and checked their model with reality!!!!
And this was the basis of the modelling used by all banks for pricing CDO portfolios!!!
BTW the same model stated that Black Monday was a slightly higher risk of once in 10 billion year event.
Clearly no one actually stepped outside the darkened room and checked their model with reality!!!!
And this was the basis of the modelling used by all banks for pricing CDO portfolios!!!
BTW the same model stated that Black Monday was a slightly higher risk of once in 10 billion year event.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 15,634
Likes: 22
From: K
for example say lung cancer kils 1 in 1000 people, if you have never smoked your chances are much better than 1 in a thousand
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
It was massively underestimated. I have just been reading about one of the models they used - they calculated that the chance of a 20% fall in property prices, nationally in the US, would only happen as a once in 10 trillion year risk.
Clearly no one actually stepped outside the darkened room and checked their model with reality!!!!
And this was the basis of the modelling used by all banks for pricing CDO portfolios!!!
BTW the same model stated that Black Monday was a slightly higher risk of once in 10 billion year event.
Clearly no one actually stepped outside the darkened room and checked their model with reality!!!!
And this was the basis of the modelling used by all banks for pricing CDO portfolios!!!
BTW the same model stated that Black Monday was a slightly higher risk of once in 10 billion year event.
It's a kind of dis-reality I normally associate with extreme insularity.
But otoh the poor risk assessment made a lot of people rich. In a sense it was successful.
