My guess is that risk aversion vs. risk tolerance is largely determined by genes but shaped by nurture. I think if you could follow people longitudinally from birth through 40 years you would find the risk averse at 40 were risk averse as children, and visa versa. Most people are somewhat selective about the risk they will accept or reject. Someone might be risk tolerant for drug use but risk averse for rock climbing.

Childhood rearing practices could certainly influence risk-acceptance/aversion. If children are encouraged to take risks in play (like climbing trees) or discouraged (don't go near the water) that could have some influence.

Maneuvering high up in trees has always been something I have not liked since my earliest memories. I did climb trees quite often, but found it nerve racking. Other things, like exploring new cities, unfamiliar parts of town, tasting plants in the woods, or sex have been territories where I readily accepted risk (or was too stupid to fear).

Some people are generally risk averse, or risk accepting. Their lives take different but not better, not worse courses. Systematic aversion or acceptance of risk alone doesn't result in good long-term decision making. The risk averse, for instance, won't invest well, since investing entails risk. The risk tolerant are more likely to invest in dubious projects.

In a simpler environment (like the stone ages) the benefits of risk aversion were clearer. But then, hunters had to take some risks or vegetarianism would be the diet by default.

Someone might be risk tolerant for drug use but risk averse for rock climbing. — Bitter Crank

Yes. I am quite happy to take financial risks, but a lot less likely to take other situational risks (for example, I don't like driving, and if I can avoid it, I will). I am also fine with the risk-taking that comes from public speaking, social situations and so on so forth. But not fine with the risks that come out of going in a dangerous part of the neighbourhood, etc. So in some ways, I am very risk averse - and in others, I am very risk tolerant.

Another thing that determines whether you are risk tolerant or risk averse in situations is how much you like or desire something. If there's a person who likes/desires driving, they're more likely to be willing to take risks in driving than someone like myself, who doesn't like it and doesn't desire it at all.

I like business for example, so I'm more than likely to take risks in business and to tolerate the risks that are necessary in business. It's my desire that pushes me to accept those risks.

Here is what Bacon had to say:

My guess is that risk aversion vs. risk tolerance is largely determined by genes but shaped by nurture. — Bitter Crank

In my experience, it is definitely a matter of temperament. Risk-taking adults are risk-taking children and risk-taking babies. There are babies who climb out of their cribs at 6 months and those who never do. Never even think of it. The ones who do at 6 months go on to be mountain bike riders with broken bones and abrasions all over their shins and elbows. I guess I'm somewhere in middle of the pack.

I have been for the most part of my life risk averse, but life changes regardless of the security you try to create for yourself, and then you realize that some of the changes foisted upon you result in needed growth. It's actually liberating to have your life dismantled to a degree because it makes you realize that clinging to the way things are is a self-imposed prison often motivated by fear. This isn't a suggestion that you should be impulsive or self-destructively free spirited, but it is to suggest you push yourself out of your comfort zone because that really is where life is most worth living.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2SfmcNg8js

I'm in a Francis Bacon (the painter) phase. I was reading that his painting style was partly a result of a need for risk-taking that showed up in other areas of his life. — frank

I'm not sure is any kind of painting is really risky since there are not really any adverse consequences to painting a bad picture. Someone will always like it.
Of what you might call his risky paintings, they seem to be rather inward and contemplative.

I'm not sure is any kind of painting is really risky since there are not really any adverse consequences to painting a bad picture. — charleton

Like if you paint a penis on Kim Jung Un's face, that would be risky. I'm sure there are other examples, but that one came to mind.

Like if you paint a penis on Kim Young Un's face, that would be risky. I'm sure there are other examples, but that one came to mind. — Hanover

Why is that risky? If you live in N. Korea I'd not recommend it - but what adverse consequences are there?

you might grow a fungus in your beard.

↪charleton you might grow a fungus in your beard. — CuddlyHedgehog

That is always a risk, but I fail to see the relevance!

True. What's risky to some is nothing to others.

After watching that video I started wondering if addiction to risk was really what was going on with Bacon. Since he was masochistic, it may be that taking risks was just one avenue to some kind of punishment?

:) I have taken a risk or two, but as I said, it was because the alternative was death. I could definitely stand to take a few more strategic risks.

Of what you might call his risky paintings, they seem to be rather inward and contemplative. — charleton

Really? The risks people say he took in painting weren't so much related to his topics (which tended to be dark and violent). It was in specific brush strokes that could destroy the whole painting.

Really? The risks people say he took in painting weren't so much related to his topics (which tended to be dark and violent). It was in specific brush strokes that could destroy the whole painting. — frank

Can you show an example so we are talking about the same thing?
IN any event - there are not really any negative consequences except a repaint - not exactly end of life stuff.
As a artist, when you get the art buying world behind you, you can pretty much make what shit you like and get sold, not that he needed the money.
Where is the risk ?

Can you show an example so we are talking about the same thing? — charleton

Francis Bacon home page

So in some ways, I am very risk averse - and in others, I am very risk tolerant. — Agustino

As are most people. The person who seeks out and takes all available risks will probably be dead before too long, and the person who avoids all available risks might as well be.

risk tolerant or risk averse in situations is how much you like or desire something — Agustino

True -- there has to be some motivation in the first place. Sex is a strong motivator, but still some people are very cautious in the their sexual behavior (risk averse) and others very risk tolerant. Engage in unprotected oral sex? Moderate to very risk tolerant people will do that. Engage in unprotected anal sex with another gay man? Very risk tolerant people will do that -- especially if the incentive is high (i.e., very attractive guy). Very risk averse people basically don't have sex because there is no way one can guarantee zero risk. Couples regularly take risks with pregnancies they don't want, and when the means to manage fertility are available.

Also, people are not good at measuring risk. Compare the risk of serious, disabling or fatal auto accident and a possible shooting: A big game will be played and 60,000 people will be in the stadium One person will be shot at random by a marksman and will die from the wound. Which risk will change your behavior? People routinely accept the risk of driving, and (when asked) say they would not attend the game under any circumstances. But the risk of death might be about the same, or perhaps higher for driving.

The risk of being infected with HIV from unprotected oral sex isn't actually known, but it seems to be quite low, and the figure of 1 infection per 10,000 blow jobs is often cited. (1 person is unlikely to perform that many blowjobs, however, no matter how enthusiastic they are. At 5 b.j.s every day, it would still take almost 5 and 1/2 years to get to 10,000.)

I regularly ride my bicycle and take various risks. I ride perhaps 20 miles from home without a tire-patching kit or a spare, and (previously) no cell phone. The risk of a flat tire is high, and the walk to a bus-stop could be quite long, but the risk has seemed acceptable. (I am getting less risk tolerant in this respect. I now have a tire patching kit and cell phone. Now for the pump...

After watching that video I started wondering if addiction to risk was really what was going on with Bacon. Since he was masochistic, it may be that taking risks was just one avenue to some kind of punishment?

It is said that his best works occurred during his most punishing relationships. Gambling is a way to question/doubt fate, to wrestle with it, to search for certitude in the midst of chance, while hoping for a run of luck. Bacon liked roulette the best because it has the longest odds and biggest rewards ( orgasmic). Its wheel reminds me of a mandala, a universe of chance, where time seldom rewards but often punishes its players, players who become entranced in their pursuit of winning, almost like artists.

I think he was able to take the punishment he suffered at the hands of his lovers, and use its erotic force as the inspirational engine driving his works. The greater the pain, the easier it was for him to transfer his experience into his works.

He enjoyed gambling and drinking with Lucian Freud, famous friends, very different kinds of artists. Freud is my favorite of this period.

Francis Bacon home page — frank

Unless you are saying that EVERY Bacon shows this riskiness, please indicate which ones you are talking about.

Sex is a strong motivator, but still some people are very cautious in the their sexual behavior (risk averse) and others very risk tolerant. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, just like the other natural impulses though I will say this. In such situations where there is some risk, people often resort to mitigating behaviours. For example, they will just do mutual masturbation instead of full on vaginal / anal intercourse. Or only oral sex, etc.

Also, how strong of a motivator sex is depends a lot on circumstances. Most often, I would say that sex is only motivating in the sense of releasing a tension. It takes love and other feelings for sex to be more motivating than that, at least from my experience.

Also, people are not good at measuring risk. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I fully agree. It's also a matter of education. I know that driving is perhaps the most dangerous activity that I can be engaged in - statistically it certainly kills or maims the most. So I try to avoid it as much as possible.

On the other hand, with regards to HIV for example, I know that even if the other person is infected, the risk of transmission is very small, even for vaginal intercourse (0.40% or so - but for some reason people seem to assume much bigger risks when it comes to HIV). So I never found it to be a big worry, especially since I never had sex outside of committed relationships. I am much more paranoid when it comes to blood tests and similar activities, where risk is higher.

With regards to sex I find the possibility of having a child a bigger risk than STDs for the most part.

At 5 b.j.s every day, it would still take almost 5 and 1/2 years to get to 10,000.) — Bitter Crank

Mmmm... is this what training for a shagathon consists in? :rofl:

Funny story... I have a friend who was somewhat bad with girls, and because other people were making fun of him that he was a virgin, etc. he paid a hooker when he was 18 to have sex with him. And his condom broke. :lol: And after that, he was obsessed about having contracted HIV - he did the test several times. Of course, he didn't, but ever since then, he doesn't care about sex anymore.

I think this also has to do with the culture of the place. In third-world countries, there is a lot more "fear" around sex than in the Western countries and a lot of misinformation that passes for fact. Of course, it depends, because this ignorance also makes some people blind to risks. But it certainly makes some quite a lot more sensitive and overprotective.

Or only oral sex, etc. — Agustino

ONLY???
Some ONLY screw!!

Hmm the video didn't work too well...

Suffice to say that I have no clue what you're on about.

Suffice to say that I have no clue what you're on about. — Agustino

I am suggesting that oral sex is seen as a step up from just screwing. It is more intimate and interesting than all that excessive humping.

Not from what I've seen.

↪charleton Not from what I've seen. — Agustino

have you ever had sex?

have you ever had sex? — charleton

:smirk: Mmmm, I am enchanted that you have such interest in my sexual history. But what does your question have to do with what we were discussing?

:smirk: Mmmm, I am enchanted that you have such interest in my sexual history. But what does your question have to do with what we were discussing? — Agustino

I'll take that as a big NO. Please refrain from talking on subjects you know nothing about.

Gambling is a way to question/doubt fate, to wrestle with it, to search for certitude in the midst of chance, while hoping for a run of luck. Bacon liked roulette the best because it has the longest odds and biggest rewards ( orgasmic). Its wheel reminds me of a mandala, a universe of chance, where time seldom rewards but often punishes its players, players who become entranced in their pursuit of winning, almost like artists. — Cavacava

The wheel of fortune. Boethius. Wrestling with God. Being sexually attracted to God's authority?

I'm going to be thinking about this for a while.

He enjoyed gambling and drinking with Lucian Freud, famous friends, very different kinds of artists. Freud is my favorite of this period. — Cavacava

I like Freud too.

the risk of transmission is very small, even for vaginal intercourse (0.40% or so - but for some reason people seem to assume much bigger risks when it comes to HIV — Agustino

It depends... IF you have many sex partners in a population with a low rate of HIV, the chance of transmission is low. If you have sex with only one person -- who is HIV+ -- over time the risk of infection becomes much, much higher. OR if you have many sex partners in a population with a high rate of HIV (like North American gay men, or among South African blacks, for instance) the risk is much higher.

All this assumes one is never using condoms and/or not taking a prophylactic medication like Truvada (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). Being HIV- and taking the daily Truvada capsule greatly reduces risk of infection, even if condoms are not used. Truvada blocks reverse transcriptase so that HIV can't become established.

And the crucifixion. What is actually going on in the crucifixion? God is punishing himself for man's sins?

He did multiple versions of the Crucifixion this one from 1933



reminds me of the travesty of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq



His others, his triptychs are intense!