We inevitably take risks all the time: every time that we act without knowing what the result will be, we are taking a risk. Are some risks more rational to take than others? If so, what determines the rationality of a risk? John and Ken discuss the complex nature of risk and risk assessment with UC Berkeley professor of philosophy, Lara Buchak. Despite the common belief that expected utility theory is the best guidance to risk-taking, Buchak argues that it allows too little of an individual's preferences to come into the equation.

Given that expected utility theory can account for how much individuals value possible outcomes in light of their probabilities, John and Ken question what could possibly be missing from the theory. Buchak explains that the theory neglects how much value the individual can place on the safety of a sure bet or the grand potential of a more chancy one. A person may be more risk-averse or more risk-seeking, and this aspect is left unaccounted for by expected utility theory. While John questions this with an example involving Russian roulette, Buchak stands by her conception of rationality in risk assessment.

当一位听众提出如何代表他人评估风险的问题时，Ken指出，围绕这种形式的风险的讨论很可能是关于道德而不是理性的。布拉克对此表示同意，并进一步回答了更多观众的问题。随着节目接近尾声，布拉克认为，在某些情况下，收集较少的选择信息实际上是最好的选择，这种不直观的立场是正确的。约翰和肯仍然有些怀疑。