Arguments Regarding the 2% Rule

Get Free Email Updates!

Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!

Loading

Arguments Regarding the 2% Rule

The 2% Rule is one of the foundational tools in the Alpha Male 2.0 toolbox that I regularly discuss. It will help ensure you live a life of long-term consistent happiness. I describe it in detail here. Summarized, it means that if something negative has only a 2% or less chance of happening to you, then you completely forget about it and proceed as if nothing is wrong. Otherwise, you will spend much of your life experiencing negative emotions about things that will never happen to you. That's irrational, stupid, and a huge waste of your time and emotional energy; energy that is better spent in other areas of your life. 

-By Caleb Jones

There is a certain percentage of my readers who get upset whenever I talk about the 2% Rule, especially over the last several months. I have gone back through various comment threads and re-read the arguments these guys have made and have summarized them below along with their answers. This is now one of my "refer to" posts where I can link to this post instead of repeating myself whenever I see one of these arguments in the future. I will also add new arguments (if I see any) to this article as needed. 

Here we go:

1. Just because something bad has low odds of occurring doesn’t mean you should never worry about it.

I completely agree. However, if you don’t also factor in how low the odds are then you’re being completely irrational. There’s a huge difference between the odds of getting into a car accident and the odds of getting murdered in your sleep. Equating these two things would be very silly on your part. 

I wear my seatbelt every time I’m in a car even though the odds are very low I’m going to get into a car accident. I carry E&O insurance in my consulting business to protect me from statistically unlikely errors I may make. I aspirate my syringes every time I do my TRT injections to ensure I don’t stick myself in a vein instead of a muscle, even though doing so is extremely unlikely. 

I regularly do all of these things to avoid low odds problems because sometimes low odds problems need to be factored into your behaviors. But, and this is important, these low odds problems are all higher than 2%. They run around 3% to perhaps 7%. 3-7% are still very low odds, but I completely agree they need to be accounted for. 

Once these odds drop below 2% and we’re talking about things that are a fraction of 1%, then I don’t give a shit anymore. Still low odds, but so damn low that if you worried about them on a regular basis you’d be indistinguishable from a maniac.  

Here’s a real example. My grandmother once knew a woman who lived far out in the country and was terrified of ever getting into a car because “you might get in a car accident!!!” One day, one of her relatives convinced her to get into the car with him for a slow drive around the country. She reluctantly did. Everything was fine until she saw another car on the road approaching them from a distance. She was so terrified she actually opened the car door and jumped out while the car was in motion. Luckily, she only broke her shoulder. She could have been killed. 

You might write off that woman as a maniac, and you'd be right, but that behavior is exactly how you look when you consider all low-odds problems as equivalent. It’s literally insane behavior.

2. You’re not accounting for the severity of the negative outcome. There’s a big difference between having a 2% chance of losing five dollars and a 2% chance of dying or losing your arm.

Correct, but when you get into the below 2% range, these numbers become so microscopic that the difference becomes irrelevant.  

Here’s what I mean. I have on my to-do list to go skydiving. I’m definitely going to do this, hopefully next year. The possible negative outcome to my jumping out of a plane is that I could literally DIE.  

According to your irrational argument, I should never jump out of a plane ever because I might die. The problem is you’re not looking at the statistical probabilities, which is the entire point of the 2% Rule. Yes, I could die, but the odds of me actually dying in one skydive is 0.0007%. [source] For comparison, the odds of you dying in a car crash after driving 10,000 miles are 0.0167%, which is 95% higher (though still well under the 2% Rule, and thus okay). 

Therefore, if you refuse to skydive one time strictly because you might die, you’re not only being irrational, you’re being hyper-irrational, especially if you regularly utilize a car. The odds are so minuscule that the very severe negative outcome becomes irrelevant.  

3. You’re not accounting for repeated activity or repeated exposure. It might be less than 2% one time, but if you do it over and over again the odds can go beyond 2%.

That is correct. As I’ve explained several times before, under these scenarios the 2% Rule applies to the probabilities of the negative outcome occurring within a given twelve-month period 

For example, let’s say my odds of dying in a skydiving accident are 1.5% per skydive instead of 0.0007%. Would I still skydive once? Hell yes. 1.5% is under the 2% Rule so I’m covered. I might even do it four or five times if I really liked it. 

But would I do it hundreds of times a year? No. That would push the odds of the negative outcome above 2%, which means I would refrain from skydiving that often.  

But! The point is that it wouldn’t prevent me from skydiving. It would simply prevent me from skydiving hundreds of times a year. I would still go on that skydive and not worry about dying. If you said I should never skydive even once because if I skydived hundreds of times my risk goes up over 2%, then once again, you’re being insane. 

Here’s a more realistic example that I’ve talked about before. Many years ago, I used to have sporadic sex with a woman who was herpes (HSV-2) positive. I made sure she wasn’t having a breakout during sex, I wore a condom and underwear during sex, I didn’t fuck her too hard or too long, and I immediately showered with strong soap right afterwards.  

OMG! Why did I engage in this utterly dangerous and risky behavior?!? Because of the 2% Rule. I knew for a fact that under those conditions my odds of contracting herpes from one sexual encounter like this was far under 2%, so as a follower of the 2% Rule, I proceeded with no fear. 

However, did I have sex with that woman hundreds of times that year? Of course not. I knew I could be jacking the odds of problems above 2% if I did that. So instead, I had sex with her a few times that year, and that was all. No problem. I enjoyed sex with her (she was hot, very athletic and fit, and we were very compatible sexually) and I never got HSV-2. (I get tested for everything twice a year and my last tests came up negative on everything, as they always do.) The 2% Rule wins again.

See how this works?

4. You say ignore things that are less than 2% but then you tell guys to approach or open women all the time. Your odds of success on any individual woman are way less than 2%! You’re not being consistent!!!

This is an extremely stupid argument but sadly I’ve seen it enough times that I guess I need to address it. 

Do I recommend to men that they go online and open just one woman and then call it a day and go jerk off to porn? No. I’ve said literally thousands of times in my books and my blogs that men need to PUT IN THE NUMBERS. They need to open/swipe thousands upon thousands of women over a period of many weeks, perhaps even months if you’re brand new. 

This way, your odds of getting dates and/or sex go way past 2%. It’s the only way to do this.  

Again, when discussing a repeated activity, the 2% Rule applies to a range of time (usually a year), not a singular event. It only applies to a singular event if you’re literally only going to do something once or a small number of times, like skydive once or twice.

5. The 2% Rule doesn’t account for conditional probabilities. Something may be 2% or less during normal conditions, but if you choose to do something high-risk, the odds go up. For example, you might not get the coronavirus just walking around your day-to-day life, but if you go on a long international cruise during the outbreak there may be a higher than 2% chance your cruise gets quarantined. 

Correct. That means certain isolated individuals are choosing to take increased risks. As long as you understand you’re taking risks that go above 2% and choose to go that route anyway, that’s your choice. You’re violating the 2% Rule and you’re choosing to do so. I wouldn’t do that, but if you or other certain risky individuals choose to do that, that’s fine. None of this has anything to do with the 2% Rule itself. 

If you choose to go on a really long, international cruise right in the middle of the worldwide pandemic scare while knowing the risks, or if you choose to have frequent, repeated, unprotected sex with African women in high-HIV regions of Africa while knowing the risks, or if you choose to drive 80 MPH on every road every time you drive knowing the increased risks of speeding tickets or accidents, then okay. You’re risky and likely even stupid, but it’s your life. I’m an individualist, so go right ahead. Either you'll get lucky and nothing bad will happen, or Darwinism will take you out of the equation for me.

In regard to the 2% Rule for you and me, the issue here is not the unusual individuals who choose to do these things, but the percentage of humanity who chooses to do these things. What percentage of individuals in the world drive 80 MPH every time they drive or have completely unprotected sex with hundreds of African women in Africa? Answer: far less than 2%. The 2% Rule prevails yet again. Individuals can choose to violate it, but 98%+ of human beings, particularly in the civilized world, do not regularly engage in behaviors this risky. Thus, it’s not really relevant to you or me. 

Every rant I’ve seen against the 2% Rule falls into one of those five categories above. If I have missed any of them, which I don’t think is likely but is possible, I will add new ones to this article.

The bottom line is this: if the odds of a negative result are 2% or less, calm the fuck down and proceed with no fear. You're asking for insanity otherwise, and insanity is not long-term happiness.

Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.

This article was originally published on March 30, 2020

Comments


  • NotAnExpert 2020-03-30 07:25:43

    Ok, so just to get a better understanding of it. Purely theoretical example, let's say there's a sort of lottery: - if you win, you gain the amount of money that will guarantee you 100% freedom and happiness until the end of life, - if you lose, you die. Probability to win is 98,1%, probability to lose is 1,9% (so under 2%). Should Alpha 2.0 enter this lottery (one time)? If I understand correctly, the answer is enthusiastic "yes".

  • Jason_ferdto 2020-03-30 08:11:01

    It’s weird to see so many guys here, belabor this point like this is some PhD level academic topic instead of spending their time getting laid, working on their business or otherwise doing something actually fun. Maybe they enjoy arguing with BD since he actually takes the time to respond to their comment? As far as coronavirus , I have made the prediction that the 100-200k government projections for death are complete fear mongering and done to hedge their bet so that they can say what a great job they did afterwards when some of the final projections come in.

  • joelsuf 2020-03-30 08:28:06

    Either you’ll get lucky and nothing bad will happen, or Darwinism will take you out of the equation for me.
    This is why I want stuff to get back to normal during the COVID 19 scare ASAP. Should have halted the economy for the back half of March and first half of April sure, but the current "strategies" are really stupid. Cuz even if COVID 19 spreads like crazy and everyone gets it (which will happen anyway since pretty much everyone already HAS it since it is asymptomatic for most), if I'm in the high risk category, I'm staying home. If I'm in the low risk category, 2% chance of getting severe health issues. I'll do all I can to keep myself clean/sanitized whatever, but if I get it I'll feel like shit for a few days or so and would need to stay home anyways. Big deal. But the chances of our economy entering a depression that will be very, VERY difficult to recover from from maintaining the "social distancing" measures are waaaaay higher than 2%. It seems like the West has almost a new tradition of sorts of violating the 2% rule to "save the poor old people and children!" while sacrificing nearly everyone else as a secondary effect. It's beyond retarded.

  • joelsuf 2020-03-30 08:37:36

    Maybe they enjoy arguing with BD since he actually takes the time to respond to their comment?
    It isn't that. In his last article, BD explained that some people LIKE being scared, irrational, insane, or angry. Or they have have been taught that it is "right" to act this way. That's what it is. That's how it is with commenting on stuff in general: You get a nice dopamine hit from it, makes you feel like you accomplished something. I for one waste a lot of time doing it. Not arguing, but commenting on stuff. lol
    I have made the prediction that the 100-200k government projections for death are complete fear mongering and done to hedge their bet so that they can say what a great job they did afterwards when some of the final projections come in.
    Bingo. Its designed to scare people into inaction so that the Nanny State can hook you up so you can "feel safe..."as long as you pay them in the form of your personal freedom. It's like Carlin said, we don't hesitate to trade away our freedom for the feeling or illusion of security. It really sucks. If the US was anarcho-capitalist, this would have been figured out really quickly. AND we would be better off. As of now, the social distancing guidelines are scheduled to be lifted in a month. If it lasts longer, we're gonna see A LOT of looting, demonstrating, and rioting even. Especially in bigger cities in the US. Just cuz I can follow these guidelines for as long as I need to doesn't mean everyone else can. Makes me happy that I live in a college town because all the college kids who caught this while partying during spring break are not here because school's out. Things have been very peaceful here as a result, although it really sucks that I can't go to the gym and all the places I go running at are now crowded, but I'll be alright.

  • CrabRangoon 2020-03-30 08:42:54

    While  haven't been participating in the doomsday porn on this pandemic (mainly just looking at the economic impacts), I did dig up some numbers on the deaths.  So far, there's been a bit over 35k deaths worldwide from this thing, and it's been happening since December, probably before. In a particularly bad flu season in recent years, they estimated up to 650k deaths worldwide from influenza, lower end years being 290k. This should give some perspective.  Yes this is a serious thing but it's also not the Bubonic plague or airborne Ebola.  Also considering this disease is happening at the same time as the cold/flu season could skew numbers. I still believe the odds of a healthy person under 60 dying from this falls in the 2%.   As has been stated before, the economic and mental health impacts will cause far more and longer lasting suffering.

  • Nick 2020-03-30 10:41:47

    I'm curious to know what you'd think of Taleb's books since he talks about problems like this all the time. You gave two very interesting examples, skydiving and sex with girls who have an STD.   Let's say skydiving has a 1.5% chance to kill you (I know it doesn't, but you said in the article you'd do it anyway w/ these odds) -- it's irrational to take this risk. There is no balance in the pay-off here. Good outcome: feel good for 30 seconds in free-fall. Bad outcome: die. The asymmetry is simply too big. Let's say there's a 1.5% of dying, but a 98.5% chance of winning 10 million dollars. Now it makes more sense to take the risk, assuming 10 million dollars will substantially change your life. Risk a 1% death rate just to feel good for a few seconds? No thanks. (And yes, I have gone skydiving in the past, I just wanted to harp on the 1.5% number a bit and talk about pay-offs.)   Sex with girls who have STDs. What? Why would an Alpha 2.0 with sexual abundance ever do this? For all the nonchalant talk of "She gives me drama? Fine, I'll just go have sex with 5 other women" it's very weird to hear you say you'd have sex with a girl that has an STD. What happened to your five other girls? Why even take the risk, even if the chance of catching it is practically zero? Why not go fuck one of your five other girls instead? There's millions of attractive, STD-free girls on the planet.  

  • Blackdragon 2020-03-30 11:19:14

    Ok, so just to get a better understanding of it. Purely theoretical example, let’s say let’s say there’s a sort of lottery: – if you win, you gain the amount of money that will guarantee you 100% freedom and happiness until the end of life, – if you lose, you die.
    I don't do fantasy hypotheticals.
    Let’s say skydiving has a 1.5% chance to kill you (I know it doesn’t, but you said in the article you’d do it anyway w/ these odds) — it’s irrational to take this risk. There is no balance in the pay-off here. Good outcome: feel good for 30 seconds in free-fall. Bad outcome: die. The asymmetry is simply too big.
    That's your personal opinion, that an exciting 30 seconds isn't worth the 1.5% chance of dying. Other men may completely disagree with you and have a different personal opinion (as a matter of fact, I know several who would). That's a purely subjective issue. What is not subjective in that scenario is that you have only a 1.5% percent chance of dying and your decision should be based on that minuscule percentage, not an imagined percentage of 15% or 30% because the outcome of dying is so scary.
    Sex with girls who have STDs. What? Why would an Alpha 2.0 with sexual abundance ever do this?
    Your question makes no sense. The answer is to add to his already high sexual abundance. The Alpha Male 2.0 has mutually consensual (and legal) sex with whomever he wants whenever he likes with no limits, based on his desires at the time. Assuming he was having sex with plenty of other women (and I certainly was a the time) if he wants to have sex with an additional one under those conditions, that's up to him.
    For all the nonchalant talk of “She gives me drama? Fine, I’ll just go have sex with 5 other women” it’s very weird to hear you say you’d have sex with a girl that has an STD.
    A 100% chance of drama does not equal a less than 2% chance of an STD. I don't like drama so I want none of it but back then I didn't mind a less than 2% of getting an STD. Two very different things.
    What happened to your five other girls?
    I fucked them too. More than five. Sexual abundance.
    Why even take the risk, even if the chance of catching it is practically zero?
    Because of the 2% Rule.
    Why not go fuck one of your five other girls instead?
    You're looking at this all wrong. I didn't just fuck the other five girls instead, I fucked them in addition to her (which is exactly what I did that year... many, many more than five, in fact). Back then (many years ago) I wanted massive sexual abundance and lots of women, therefore that activity level matched my objectives. You mention "sexual abundance" but you've haven't fully grasped the concept yet. If you say "if I was fucking five girls I would never add a sixth who had an STD" then now we're back to your personal opinion, which is not relevant to the 2% Rule. Some Alpha 2.0s are at points in their lives where they want six girls, or seven, or ten, even if one of them has an STD. That's fine (as long as they take all the precautions necessary to drive the odds of getting that STD below 2%; if they don't do that they they're obviously morons). If you don't want that many women that's fine too. Today as my life is now I would never want that many women. Today I would not do this, since today I don't give a shit about numbers of women and I'll happily stick with my current three. It would make no sense for me to do what I did back then today since today my objectives are  different. The point I didn't limit my sexual abundance back then because of a less than 2% risk.

  • Leon 2020-03-30 11:47:21

    Good stuff, Caleb. It really helps to understand the 2% rule better. QUESTION: How do we calculate the ''2%'' number if there's no scientific source for that specific activity?. The number seems very arbitrary, why not 1%? Why not 3%? I had a debate with my little bro the other day when he said the chance to catch the virus is well above 2% and I said it's under but wasn't very sure myself. Also, you should write something about 3 Zones of Concern regarding this COVID-19. I perfectly get the zone of control, however, the zone of influence and zone of concern is a bit nuanced and hard to distinguish.

  • Blackdragon 2020-03-30 12:30:08

    How do we calculate the ”2%” number if there’s no scientific source for that specific activity?
    You do as much research on the item as you possibly can and then guess the rest if you can't find enough. There's a lot of information out there on just about everything so the probabilities are usually easy to find. At least I've never had a problem.
    The number seems very arbitrary, why not 1%? Why not 3%?
    Correct, the 2% figure is arbitrary but it's not "very" arbitrary. I chose that number based on what would make the most sense in terms of common sense. But true, it's still an arbitrary number, so if you instead wanted to adopt a 1% Rule or 3% Rule for yourself, that would be fine. However, if you instead adopted a 0.1% Rule or a 7% Rule I think you'd be a little insane.
    I had a debate with my little bro the other day when he said the chance to catch the virus is well above 2% and I said it’s under but wasn’t very sure myself.
    Don't strongly assert things you're not sure of (unless you state, "I'm not sure about this, but...") Regardless, if you really want to argue this with him (and I think you have better ways of spending your time), then A) you need to get more data and do more research and B) get him to state his specific percentage (because just saying "you're wrong" is not an argument) and have him defend that with facts.
    Also, you should write something about 3 Zones of Concern regarding this COVID-19. I perfectly get the zone of control, however, the zone of influence and zone of concern is a bit nuanced and hard to distinguish.
    Incorrect. There is no zone of influence with COVID-19 (unless you're the president or governor of a state or something). There is only your zone of control and zone of concern. Obviously you know which zone you need to focus on.

  • Redbaron 2020-03-30 13:34:33

    I chose that number based on what would make the most sense in terms of common sense.
    I was thinking you chose 2% based on the standard bell curve, where -2 standard deviations would be about 2.3% cumulatively, and chopped off the 0.3 part to make it easier to convey to readers

  • Blackdragon 2020-03-30 14:14:32

    I was thinking you chose 2% based on the standard bell curve, where -2 standard deviations would be about 2.3% cumulatively, and chopped off the 0.3 part to make it easier to convey to readers.
    Uh YEAH, yeah, exactly! That's the real reason I chose 2%. 🙂 Actually no. I'm not that smart. Remember, I never went to college. (I was too busy making money.)

  • Pigeon 2020-03-30 14:24:15

    Guys, 2% rule is just a rule of thumb. You're missing the forest for the trees.

  • Buzz 2020-03-30 17:18:39

    First of all, this is a PhD level academic topic it is called Statistics and probability. I and most of the other people on here including BD have probably not taken a college level statistics and probability class. If I remember correctly, Bd has advised in writing that you should keep 20 percent of your wealth in gold even though keeping 20 percent of your wealth in gold is a hassle. That is because gold is considered to be zero risk. Now he didn't write 2 percent gold, he wrote 20 percent gold, so, that would be a 20 percent rule, not a 2 percent rule and I would be more comfortable with 20 percent and that would be thinking that your injury free life is as important as your money. Interesting story, I was sent out of town for new hire technical training for several weeks. All the other guys at the training wanted to go parachute jumping over the weekend. I had always thought that parachute jumping would be exciting, but not worth dying or even getting injured so, I was the only one that didn't go. Things were fine when they jumped out of the plane but a ground level wind came up at 15 miles an hour after they jumped. All 8 of them went to the hospital with broken arms and legs, couldn't complete the technical training and lost their jobs, but they didn't die. I don't know what statistics are available on just injuries and not death. If you don't have a really good reason to take a risk, don't and if you do, insure it. Another item of interest, testosterone level affects a person's decisions on risk, high T causes you to take more risks. On the novel corona virus. We are very lucky that we don't suffer from waterborne diseases, tetanus, polio, and other diseases but medical science has not gotten viruses under control yet even flue vaccines are only 20 to 40 percent effective and when a virus jumps from a different specie it can be very deadly. Nobody knew for sure what was going to happen, just that over time some of these viruses are worse than others and our only source of information was China which may not be accurate but was all that was available. It does sound like a lot of people are being made very uncomfortable from it and that a lot of people are dying, over a wider age range than first reported. All the numbers are not in yet, it may not have peaked yet and a yearly total is not available yet, and many of the dead were not tested for what they died of. That is not enough information to reliably predict the future.

  • Blackdragon 2020-03-30 17:39:17

    If I remember correctly,
    You don't remember correctly.
    Bd has advised in writing that you should keep 20 percent of your wealth in gold even though keeping 20 percent of your wealth in gold is a hassle.
    Incorrect. I advise that you keep 30-50% of your long-term cash reserves as gold. Not 20% of your wealth.
    That is because gold is considered to be zero risk.
    No. Gold is not zero risk. Nothing is zero risk. (Even cash in US Dollars.)
    Things were fine when they jumped out of the plane but a ground level wind came up at 15 miles an hour after they jumped. All 8 of them went to the hospital with broken arms and legs,
    Anecdotal stories are not statistics.
    Another item of interest, testosterone level affects a person’s decisions on risk, high T causes you to take more risks.
    Correct. I'm high-T so I'm definitely going to take more risks than the typical man (who is low-T, since the majority of modern day men these days are low-T). But that has nothing to do with the 2% Rule. I came up with that concept well before I ever started my TRT.

  • Pigeon 2020-03-30 20:03:09

    I and most of the other people on here including BD have probably not taken a college level statistics and probability class.
    I have, at the undergrad and graduate level. I can tell you that you are overthinking something very simple. Correct me if I'm wrong, Caleb, but it is just a rule of thumb, not a highly rigorous calculation. Stop hyper focusing on the exact number of 2% and take the core idea to heart: do not worry about things that have a low probability of happening. That's it. Wringing your hands about edge cases, hypotheticals, or exactly precise calculations is a waste of time and missing the point.

  • Blackdragon 2020-03-30 21:07:32

    Correct me if I’m wrong, Caleb, but it is just a rule of thumb, not a highly rigorous calculation. Stop hyper focusing on the exact number of 2% and take the core idea to heart: do not worry about things that have a low probability of happening. That’s it. Wringing your hands about edge cases, hypotheticals, or exactly precise calculations is a waste of time and missing the point.
    You're more or less correct in that if you're worrying about whether or not the 2% Rule should be a 3% Rule or a 1.4% Rule or a 0.9% Rule then you're just nitpicking and need to calm the fuck down. Also, as is always the case, if you have to ask questions or present objections by using bizarre hypotheticals that will probably never happen in the real world, that alone should tell you where your thought process is about all this.

  • Greg 2020-03-31 02:27:50

    I've done statistics at university and the teaching at mine is terrible, as they bombard you with way too much info in a very short time period, with the math you've got to do manually and with also using Excel. It's an invaluable tool to learn, so just go on Khan academy on YouTube and watch all his statistics vids, then buy a book on using Excel for doing statistics.

  • Antekirtt 2020-03-31 04:03:13

    Essentially this is similar to debates around Pascal's Wager, which is admittedly fun stuff lol. In my case, if the risk is actual death while the reward is "tremendous fun", I think my threshold would be closer to a 1/1000 chance of death than 2%, which would be too high. But the logic is the same. For skydiving, the odds of dying are in the order of one in 100,000, so I would probably want to not skydive more than roughly a hundred times in my life. Bear in mind though that this is tricky: probability after the fact is not the same as before the fact; if you skydive 100 times and survive, the clock is actually reset, since those 100 jumps are behind you and your survival is a fact, so far. One would also want to account for sample bias: parachute jumps that do end in death may tend to have been caused by factors that skew the odds; if you do everything right each time you jump, you may find that the actual odds of death become one in a million instead of one in 100k, etc. In the topics usually discussed here, the penalty that you risk is generally nowhere close to death (prison, big fine, huge drama, FRA, etc, etc), making 2% a more accurate intuitive threshold.

  • Imch 2020-04-01 01:38:41

    The 2% Rule is one of the foundational tools in the Alpha Male 2.0 toolbox that I regularly discuss. It will help ensure you live a life of long-term consistent happiness. 
    It will help ensure 98% of you a life of... 😉

  • AlphaOmega 2020-04-02 04:06:15

    But the logic is the same. For skydiving, the odds of dying are in the order of one in 100,000, so I would probably want to not skydive more than roughly a hundred times in my life. Bear in mind though that this is tricky: probability after the fact is not the same as before the fact; if you skydive 100 times and survive, the clock is actually reset, since those 100 jumps are behind you and your survival is a fact, so far. One would also want to account for sample bias: parachute jumps that do end in death may tend to have been caused by factors that skew the odds; if you do everything right each time you jump, you may find that the actual odds of death become one in a million instead of one in 100k, etc.
    The probabilities do not add up like this. Perhaps I understand you wrong but it suggests that you think if you do it 100 times than the chance of death becomes 1 in 100. This is not the case Probabilities are multiplicative not additive. I don't remember the exact way to calculate it but you can look it up. The point is that if you do it 100 times its still much much less than 1 in 1000.

  • Antekirtt 2020-04-04 02:38:05

    @AlphaOmega: you take the converse of the probability (1 minus the fraction) and you raise it to the power N, where N is the number of times the activity is repeated. For eg, if the odds of death in one go are 1/10, then you take 0.9 (one minus 1/10) and you raise it to, eg, the 10th power, and that gives you the probability of not dying over ten occurrences: 0.9^10=0.34 or so, which means the odds of death are about 66% (1-0.34). So you're right that it's not linear, but you actually misread my comment. The math will still fall in the general ballpark where, very grossly, a 1/n chance of death becomes higher than a coin flip if you do it n times. This is also why, since the death rate in young people is about 1/1000 per year, their life expectancy if aging was cured and if they remained eternally young would be about 700 years (yes in reality other death factors may change the number a bit, but you get the idea).

  • Norski 2020-04-12 15:05:20

    Dig it, I'm curious how you'd mitagate the dangers of motorcycling if you did decide to ride one.  (I'm aware you're against them) There's a commonly mentioned stat where taking the MSF course (Motorcycle Safety Foundation) reduces the odds of becoming a motorcycle fatality by 96%.  I'd look at causality and infer that only 4% of motorcycle fatalities in my state took the MSF, not the other way around.  Hard to hop on an R6 and ride in flip flops and shorts with no helmet after taking that. Regardless, I love riding, I spend a lot of time carving the canyons where I can see quite well, wear high visibility full protective gear (a white armored race jacket, helmet glows in the dark, bike lights up purple like a ghost from Halo, and the exhaust screams like an F1 car when she gets pissed off). I don't like commuting on her so I save rides for when there's less traffic on the roads (most cars here are subarus.. They all drive like a drunk & stoned kid who dropped out). The more I ride, the less I want to be in the city. My state passed lane filtering which reduces collsions where subarus crash into the back of bikers at lights. The only other very common types of accident are when said subaru makes a left turn into you at a light or when people drink and ride.  (Not my thing. It feels vulnerable enough out there already) I'm taking more of a Caleb Jones approach to the world. I sit right on the 50/50 brink of INTJ and ENTP and score all 4 types depending on when I take the test.  My life got a significant upgrade when I plugged your tech in so I'm curious how you'd approach this aside from "Not riding" had you decided to take the risks and mitagate them as much as possible. Dating life got ridiculously good when I got a bike, 4x my total lay count in 18 months good, 2x in the first 6 months. Have you cooked the data on riding and more importantly do you have a specific protocol for going about running stats on things? I just collect everything relevant and try to follow things it to their logical conclusions.  You've got a damn cool ability to step out of a scenario and see things objectively which I'd love to learn how to do on that level. Much appreciated for your work, you're the only guy in the manosphere I've studied intensively who is still building and has their legacy content up.

  • Blackdragon 2020-04-12 18:42:42

    Dig it, I’m curious how you’d mitagate the dangers of motorcycling if you did decide to ride one. (I’m aware you’re against them)
    I'm not against them. I love them. I just choose not to ride one. All I would do is do the research on how statistically likely I would be to die or be seriously injured in a typical year of driving (perhaps 10,000 miles driven) then make my decision.
    Much appreciated for your work, you’re the only guy in the manosphere I’ve studied intensively who is still building and has their legacy content up.
    You're very welcome.

  • Clark 2020-04-27 09:17:29

    I have degrees in business and law and have travelled the world. However, wind back many years and I was a gamer geek who loved DnD and such, and I still have a collection of dice.  The "natural 20" is 5% but other games used other methods, and even at 2% or less, you really DON'T want to be messing with that chance when what is on the table is of high value. The "green double O" or whatever appear at the worst times possible. I get it: it is a dumb rule for dumb people who have no real concept of risk management. I thought your clientele would be a bit more sophisticated.

  • Frank 2020-04-28 11:19:15

    The problem with your 2% rules is, you dont adapt to a situation, where you have to handle the 2%. If you do 100 things, that have a 1% probability, one of those things will happen. And the hedonistic attitude "I am my own master and nothing under 2% probability will happen." will not help you. My live changed, when i got a disabled son. I had to learn, how to live with an unchangeable bad situation. I think, that made me strong. But i also knew, i had to accept it. But ignoring that bad things happen to good people, will only make you ignorant.