JJ10DMAN comments on Simultaneously Right and Wrong - Less Wrong

88 Post author: Yvain 07 March 2009 10:55PM

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

Comments (52)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: JJ10DMAN 10 August 2010 11:00:56AM 1 point [-]

Last November, Robin described a study where subjects were less overconfident if asked to predict their performance on tasks they will actually be expected to complete. He ended by noting that "It is almost as if we at some level realize that our overconfidence is unrealistic."

I think there's a less perplexing answer: that at some level we realize that our performance is not 100% reliable, and we should shift down our estimate by an intuitive standard deviation of sorts. That way, we can under-perform in this specific case, and won't have to deal with the group dynamics of someone else's horrible disappointment because they were counting on you doing your part as well as you said you could.

Comment author: orthonormal 10 August 2010 11:27:16PM 0 points [-]

First, welcome to Less Wrong! Be sure to hit the welcome thread soon.

Doesn't your hypothesis here predict compensation for overconfidence in every situation, and not just for easy tasks?

Comment author: JJ10DMAN 15 October 2010 01:31:58PM 0 points [-]

Yes it does.

...

Is there some implication I'm not getting here?

Comment author: orthonormal 17 October 2010 09:52:51PM 0 points [-]

Um, I don't actually remember now– I thought that one of the results was that people compensated more for overconfidence when the tasks were not too difficult. But I don't see that, looking it over now.