[jonahx]

If you just asked them, in all their ignorance, you're undoubtedly right. If you asked the children who chose the adventurous dad after he had died pursuing his passion, nearly 100% would trade the world to reverse that choice.

[Someone]

The 'choice' isn't between "dull and alive" and "adventurous and dead", but between "dull, 99.9% chance of living to an old age" and "adventurous, 95% chance of living to an old age" (actual percentages for illustration only)

I think many kids, especially those with an adventurous mom/dad, would think "my mom/dad is strong and knows what he is doing, so (s)he won't be in that 5%"

[mseebach]

The top-GP didn't say "adventurous", they said chasing "adrenaline fix". You can be adventurous without exposing yourself to fatal danger (and you can be an adrenaline fix chaser and be a really, really dull person to be around).

> I think many kids, especially those with an adventurous mom/dad, would think "my mom/dad is strong and knows what he is doing, so (s)he won't be in that 5%"

Not this guy's:

> "My children don't like it much but they don't tell me not to do it," he says.

[jonahx]

Most adults don't really understand how likely 5% is. You're ascribing a level of mathematical sophistication and risk assessment to children that they simply don't possess -- not even close.

[curun1r]

Your hypothetical survey method has a literal survivorship bias (and a statistical one...you're not asking the children of parents that took risks and didn't die). Looking at risk the way you're looking at it is a recipe for wasting your life. The better way to think of it is like the way that poker players look at their decision making...don't be outcome oriented. There's a logical, statistical way to do this and it's called the micromort. 1 micromort equates to a 1 in 1 million chance of death. Each activity that has been engaged in widely enough to be measured will have a micromort value and, while the math is a bit more complicated, they mostly just add up. Just because he engages in an exotic activity that carries some risk, doesn't mean he's being reckless.

Put another way, would you say a father that chooses to drive a 2 hour commute (each way) per day is being reckless? No doubt you can find countless children who lost a parent in an auto accident who would tell you they would have wanted their father to have a shorter commute and still be with them. But since driving is a familiar activity, no one questions the risk that someone is incurring with that kind of decision. And yet that 2-hours to work and 2-hours back drive is, based on the stats that I've been able to find, around 1 micromort. Over the course of a year, that adds up to around 200 micromorts, or roughly 1/5000 chance of dying. I can't find the data on cave diving, which is no doubt higher than recreational diving, but SCUBA has a value of 5 micromorts per dive, so it's roughly equivalent to driving 1250 miles on a highway. Someone doing 40 dives per year is taking on roughly the same risk as that 50,000 mi/year driver.

Humans are really bad about estimating risk. We do it by equating risk to the ease in which we can imagine something happening. It's why so many people are afraid of statistically safe activities like air travel while underestimating much more serious dangers. We need a framework, like micromorts, for thinking about risk logically to better determine what amount of risk to take on and then "spend" that risk budget in whatever way helps us get the most out of life. Parents can say, "I'd like a 90% chance of being alive when my kids turn 10, a 75% chance of being alive when they turn 18 and a 50% chance of being alive when they turn 30." Once you've decided on a risk threshold, you can work backwards to determine how many micromorts you're allowed to take on each year.

Otherwise, you're just living your life based on irrational fears.

[jamra]

This reads like the most sophistic argument to the point he was trying to make. The diver was a cave diver, not a regular scuba diver. It's very different and notoriously risky. He almost died in the same cave previously. His point was well taken.

It doesn't mean that being risk averse is the right way to live. It's a fair point and a good thing to consider when you are a parent. That's all.

[BearGoesChirp]

>He almost died in the same cave previously.

While I get the emotional impact of this, it really shouldn't be an argument either way once you begin using some framework to judge decisions.

Think of it this way, if I nearly died in a car wreck on the way to work, would it be fine for me to never get in a car again? I almost died doing that once!

It would make more sense to determine the risk. That he already nearly died doesn't really change the risk profile. Cave diving is extremely risky. That should be the important factor. Having nearly died should not.

[zapperdapper]

I agree. In USA you are looking at 34,000 deaths a year on the roads. I'm a diver (not caves though) but my closest shaves have been while commuting! Cycling to work is probably more dangerous than cave diving.

[jonahx]

> Put another way, would you say a father that chooses to drive a 2 hour commute (each way) per day is being reckless?

This question appears rhetorical (with an intended answer of "no"), but I absolutely think such a risk should be considered, whether or not you're a parent. The higher-order bits here are probably the time you're wasting with 100% probability, perhaps the increased life satisfaction of a great job, etc, but the p% additional chance you die in a car crash, as you said, is non-trivial, and even though I know very people incorporate such thinking into their decision making, I think they should.

[nicky0]

> micromort

Today I learned this.

[chii]

That's an inherently biased question, because they've already suffered the loss, and so would've chosen not to suffer it given the chance.

The same thing (but reverse) with asking children whose fathers didn't go on an adventure and see if they would've preferred a more adventurous father!

[jonahx]

I'm sorry, but this is a kind of clever sophistry that is absurd in the face of lived experience...

> The same thing (but reverse) with asking children whose fathers didn't go on an adventure and see if they would've preferred a more adventurous father!

Yes, each child only knows one half of the story, as it were. But the knowledge imbalance is not symmetrical. The child whose father has died understands boredom and dissatisfaction in other ways... perhaps his mother is boring, or sometimes nags him, and even his adventurous (now dead) father surely disappointed him sometimes, and so on.

The child who has not experienced death really has no idea what that suffering is like. It's just utterly callow to think his opinion has equal weight.

[henrikm85]

While, as a father, I instinctively hate your answer, it is a very good point that helped me see beyond my previous horizon, thanks for that!