= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MBlume comments on A Taxonomy of Bias: The Cognitive Miser - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (36)
Can we perhaps come up with some better names than "Type 1" and "Type 2"? Those aren't suggestive at all.
Can we go further than this and declare a blanket moratorium on "1 and 2" or "a and b" taxonomies?
Talk to the statisticians. They've been using "Type I error" and "Type II error" instead of "false positive" and "false negative" for ages.
In this case, though, I had much less trouble than with the statistical errors. Possibly because those are essentially the same thing, differentiated only by which hypothesis is "null". Here, though, a Type 1 system and a Type 2 system are actually very different things. Plus as others have mentioned the ordering on the systems does make sense.
They're still bad names. It's like making new word processor documents and leaving them titled "Untitled 1" and "Untitled 2" instead of something descriptive.
I remember learning this and absolutely hating statisticians for it
Some people can not be saved. That is absolutely idiotic.
Yes please!