datadataeverywhere comments on Bayes' rule =/= Bayesian inference - Less Wrong

37 Post author: neq1 16 September 2010 06:34AM

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

Comments (70)

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

Comment author: datadataeverywhere 17 September 2010 05:32:35AM 0 points [-]

Guessing that everyone is T- results in a 100% false negative rate, which although not much better than a 99% false negative rate, might more than make up for a 1% decrease in the false positive rate.

If this is a real cancer test, and the researcher is optimizing a balance between false positives and false negatives, where would you prefer that he or she place that balance? A lot of medical tests have intentionally very low false negative rates even if that means they have proportionally much higher false positive rates (than they would if they were optimizing for a different balance).