thomblake comments on Beauty quips, "I'd shut up and multiply!" - Less Wrong

6 Post author: neq1 07 May 2010 02:34PM

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

Comments (335)

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

Comment author: neq1 07 May 2010 08:44:27PM 0 points [-]

There is a mismatch between the betting question and the original question about probability.

At an awakening, she has no more information about heads or tails than she had originally, but we're forcing her to bet twice under tails. So, even if her credence for heads was a half, she still wouldn't make the bet.

Suppose I am going to flip a coin and I tell you you win $1 if heads and lose $2 if tails. You could calculate that the p(H) would have to be 2/3 in order for this to be a fair bet (have 0 expectation). That doesn't imply that the p(H) is actually 2/3. It's a different question. This is a really important point, a point that I think has caused much confusion.

Comment author: thomblake 07 May 2010 08:48:24PM 1 point [-]

Do you think this analysis works for the fact that a well-calibrated Beauty answers "1/3"? Do you think there's a problem with our methods of judging calibration?