Very interesting article posted in the NY Times a few days ago.

Hmm....it seems that page requires a username/password that some of you might not have or want to get. Here's a word document of the same article.

At least it is very interesting to geeky types such as myself who get off on understanding how people approach and evaluate risk and uncertainty.

---

First, there's a brief test:

1. A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

2. If it takes five machines five minutes to make five widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?

3. In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half the lake?

---

This is much more than just math/logic test - or so Professor Shane Frederick (who, by the way is a huge fan of the Minnesota Vikings...and therefore knows a little about risk) of MIT says. It's an indicator of your tolerance for risk: high scorers tend to prefer risky gambles more than low scorers, even when the gambles aren't especially favorable.

---

I'm embarassed to say that I got only 2 out of 3 right. I proceeded to kick myself quite hard over the one that I got wrong. It's embarrassing, really.

Perhaps not embarrassing that I am not as much of a risk taker as I thought, but evidently my math/logic skills have gone out the window.

Still, I scored higher than those University of Toledo people. I can take pride in that.

Hell, I even scored higher than those Princeton people.

Yeah, shut up. I *know* they were undergraduates. Let me gloat for just a little bit. k?

---

(answers are at the bottom of the linked article)

---

Something to think about: I'm not as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was.