Cyan comments on Calibration for continuous quantities - Less Wrong

26 Post author: Cyan 21 November 2009 04:53AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (13)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Cyan 27 November 2009 03:33:59PM 0 points [-]

That might be it, but the memory that swirls foggily about in my mind has to do with engineers being asked to give intervals for the point of failure of dams...

Comment author: Sebastian_Hagen 06 December 2009 06:40:27PM *  2 points [-]

There is a result in Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgement of global risks, p. 17, which is about intervals given by engineers about points of dam failure. It really doesn't make your claim, but it does look like the kind of thing that could be misremembered in this way. Quoting the relevant paragraph:

Similar failure rates have been found for experts. Hynes and Vanmarke (1976) asked seven internationally known geotechical engineers to predict the height of an embankment that would cause a clay foundation to fail and to specify confidence bounds around this estimate that were wide enough to have a 50% chance of enclosing the true height. None of the bounds specified enclosed the true failure height. Christensen-Szalanski and Bushyhead (1981) reported physician estimates for the probability of pneumonia for 1,531 patients examined because of a cough. At the highest calibrated bracket of stated confidences, with average verbal probabilities of 88%, the proportion of patients actually having pneumonia was less than 20%.

Comment author: Cyan 06 December 2009 09:41:54PM 0 points [-]

Yup, I think the two links you found explain my misremembered factoid.