orthonormal comments on Advancing Certainty - Less Wrong

34 Post author: komponisto 18 January 2010 09:51AM

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

Comments (108)

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

Comment author: Kevin 18 January 2010 12:09:30PM *  -2 points [-]

This is a side-point, perhaps, but something to take into account with assigning probabilities is that while Amanda Knox is not guilty, she is certainly a liar.

When confronting someone known to be lying during something as high stakes as a murder trial, people assign them a much higher probability of guilt, because someone that lies during a murder trial is actually more likely to have committed murder. That seems to be useful evidence when we are assigning numerical probabilities, but it was a horrific bias for the judge and jury of the case.

Edit: To orthnormal, yes, that is what I meant, thank you. I also agree that it's possible that her being a sociopath and/or not neurotypical confused the prosecutor.

Comment author: orthonormal 18 January 2010 07:20:15PM 3 points [-]

IAWYC (and don't understand the downvotes); the point in the last paragraph is a key one. Evidence that a suspect is lying should raise the probability of their guilt, but not nearly to the extent that it actually sways judges and juries (because people have the false idea that everyone but perpetrators will be telling the truth).