= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MichaelBishop comments on Guess Again - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (28)
I'm working on it. Clearly, "none of the above" situations - or the latter "Bingo" case - can rightly yield surprise.
Perhaps surprise is warranted when a well-supported model, rather than a well-calibrated probability, is disconfirmed. That doesn't explain why we should be surprised about a personal friend winning the lottery, though. That seems to be surprising solely because of astronomically low odds and the specialness of the outcome.
Maybe it does explain why we're surprised about a personal friend winning the lottery - if we identify the "well-supported model" we were relying on.
Note, it need not be a model which is well-supported in terms of epistemic rationality. Merely that the model has been instrumentally useful: i.e. "my personal friend won't become incredibly wealthy without warning."
Alternatively, maybe it is worth considering different types of surprise which have some things in common but some differences.