Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Daniel_Burfoot comments on You Be the Jury: Survey on a Current Event - Less Wrong

31 Post author: komponisto 09 December 2009 04:25AM

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

Comments (260)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 09 December 2009 03:18:51PM *  3 points [-]
  • P(AK=guilty) = .01
  • P(RS=guilty) = .01
  • P(RG=guilty) = .995

Do I think my assessment will coincide with yours? Of course I do, we're supposed to be rationalists!

I had zero familiarity with the case before reading the links provided, and did not read any of the comments in reaching my estimate.

I admit to having non-trivially updated based on my perception of the lack of seriousness of the pro-conviction site's domain name (what is this, Marvel Comics?)

Comment author: ciphergoth 09 December 2009 08:05:06PM 3 points [-]

Those are very high confidences, could you say a little about that?

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 10 December 2009 03:41:50PM 7 points [-]

The prior probability of a three-way conspiracy to commit rape and murder is way, way lower than the prior probability of it being a one man job.

I didn't see any evidence that would move much probability mass away from the prior probabilities, but this could just be due to the slice of the evidence I saw given my 30 minutes or so of reviewing it.

Comment author: komponisto 09 December 2009 06:36:52PM 1 point [-]

I admit to having non-trivially updated based on my perception of the lack of seriousness of the pro-conviction site's domain name

How much of a shift do you think this accounted for? What would your estimates have been if the same site had been called something different?

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 10 December 2009 03:52:34PM 1 point [-]

How much of a shift do you think this accounted for? What would your estimates have been if the same site had been called something different?

The name is just one piece of evidence. Overall the pro-conviction site did not impress me at all. It seemed to be full of irrelevant statements, and things like site usage statistics.