mattnewport comments on So You Think You're a Bayesian? The Natural Mode of Probabilistic Reasoning - Less Wrong

48 Post author: Matt_Simpson 14 July 2010 04:51PM

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

Comments (79)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_M 15 July 2010 04:40:14AM *  3 points [-]

I must wonder whether, and to what extent, these results would replicate in a real-world situation where the question is perceived as truly important by the parties concerned.

When discussing research like this, people often imagine the subjects fully applying themselves, as if they were on an important exam or in a business situation where big money is involved. However, to get a more realistic picture, you should imagine yourself in a situation where someone is asking you obscure TV quiz-style questions about things that you don't care about in the slightest, bored to death, being there only because of some miserable incentive like getting a course credit or a few dollars of pocket money. I can easily imagine people in such a situation giving casual answers without any actual thought involved, based on random clues from the environment -- just like you might use e.g. today's date as an inspiration for choosing lottery numbers.

Therefore, the important question is: has anyone made similar observations in a situation where the subjects had a strong incentive to really give their best when thinking about the answers? If not, I think one should view these results with a strong dose of skepticism.

Comment author: mattnewport 15 July 2010 04:46:51AM 0 points [-]

I believe this has been discussed in the context of the Efficient Market Hypothesis. I view it as something akin to the feud between Islam and Christianity.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 15 July 2010 06:33:27AM 0 points [-]

mattnewport:

I view it as something akin to the feud between Islam and Christianity.

I'm unable to grasp the analogy -- could you elaborate on that?

Comment author: mattnewport 15 July 2010 06:45:32AM *  2 points [-]

Two schools of economics / religion (behavioural / neoclassical, islam / christianity) with many shared assumptions (similar holy texts) that have attracted followers due to offering common sense advice and a solid framework of practical value but pursue an ongoing holy war over certain doctrinal issues that are equally flawed and ungrounded in reality.

Or: what they agree on is largely wrong but has some instrumentally useful elements. What they disagree on is largely irrelevant. The priesthood considers the differences very significant but most people ignore everything but the useful bits and get on with their lives.