[ijpoijpoihpiuoh]

Hrm, I don't really agree. There are a lot of very interesting things that are not very risky. Most productive activities are not very risky (art, woodworking, home improvement, etc.), and are very interesting to some of us. Sex is another example of something a lot of people like which carries little risk of harm.

I don't think there is good evidence beyond anecdata that the retired die early or that trust fund kids are depressed.

[esotericn]

Sex carries 'little risk of harm'? Do we live in the same world?

I think your definition of risk is rather narrow.

Going out, finding a wife, grinding at a job, taking a mortgage, starting a company, not starting a company - all risk.

You might be able to claim that physical risks are harsher and less expected, but getting a mortgage, having children, getting married, a lot of the good stuff in life entails risk because you're making commitments that are extremely difficult or impossible to walk back if you don't want them any more.

[ijpoijpoihpiuoh]

I think you're focusing a little too much on that one example, but let me engage with you on this regardless. Even after a person has taken all those risks and they are sunk costs, the activity itself is still enjoyable, interesting, etc., even though it entails minimal marginal or excess risk. Similarly, hugging your kids is an enjoyable thing to do, and not at all risky. Having kids is risky, but once you have them, hugging them is risk free and still fun.

I also don't really find these things to be all that risky above the baseline. They certainly don't pose much risk of physical harm. To your point, they do pose some risk of psychological or financial harm, but the same can be said of the choice to not have a child or not take out a mortgage. There are plenty of happy childless people, but also a not inconsiderable number that wish they could have had children and regret that they did not. Same can be said for people who rented rather than bought. Either way, the choice is risky, and you can't opt out of the choice.

The same cannot be said for climbing a steep rock wall or riding a motorcycle. These choices impose excess risk above and beyond the baseline that comes from living in a material world. It was my understanding that this excess risk is what you were referring to when you claimed that enjoyment requires risk. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize, but I'm also not sure what you are actually trying to convey, since this article is mostly about excess risk.

----

I can't reply to you, so I'm editing this comment instead.

> I disagree with your characterization of physical risk as being 'excess risk'

Ah, it is understandable for you to disagree, considering that is not what I meant. :) Excess risk is risk you take above and beyond a baseline required for a particular context. If I need to get from the bottom of a tower to the top, the risk imposed by taking the elevator might be considered the baseline risk. Suppose I decide to scale the exterior surface instead. To the extent that activity is riskier than the baseline, that is excess risk.

This does not only apply to physical situations. Social, economic, etc. risk can also be analyzed in terms of excess risk. For example, you earlier mentioned the decision to marry or not. There is social risk in either choice. Probably, which choice is riskier depends on your own psychological makeup and your social context. But there are probably choices that are absolutely riskier in your given society. For example, in most modern societies, entering into multiple social marriages at the same time would impose excess social risk. For more see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_difference

[esotericn]

I disagree with your characterization of physical risk as being 'excess risk' (where other forms of risk are not), but I can't/won't elaborate on why, because I think it's just a personal opinion formed through experience.

[karamanolev]

I think the parent had this key part - "risk - whether it be to limb, financial, social, mental, or whatever else". Going by your example of art, it carries some of the other types of risks - mental (not being appreciated), financial (not making enough for a decent life), societal (getting too engulfed and being lonely). I'm not saying the parent was well backed by data and statistics, I just think there's some truth to it - interesting things are frequently interesting, because you can also fail at them. If you can't fail, the reward is much smaller / non-existent.

[ijpoijpoihpiuoh]

Doing art (or anything else) as a profession certainly has those risks, but art as an activity in general does not have any significant excess risks associated with it. (I would not consider "getting engulfed" as an excess risk since that can happen with anything.)

You may be right that there is some truth to what the top poster said. I did not mean to imply I thought it was absolutely and categorically untrue. I just think it's broadly untrue. "Things that are unrisky are unfun" is a not a generally true statement, for most people. It could certainly be true for some people. But, I suspect most people who say such things are rationalizing their choice of activity, exactly as the linked article suggests.