= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on If a tree falls on Sleeping Beauty... - 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 (27)
Downvoted, both because I disagree with the main point, and because I don't see any good reason to kick this dead horse again. ("You still don't agree with me" is not a good reason.)
OP is really claiming, without a fair and balanced presentation of evidence, that people are less-able to make ambiguous statements about payoffs, than to make ambiguous statements about probability. OP draws the conclusion from this that probability is a meaningless and useless concept. But there is at best a quantitative, not a qualitative, distinction here between the precision of talking in terms of payoffs, and talking in terms of probability.
The fact that something is difficult to talk about unambiguously does not mean it should be tabooed.
I was going more for the point that some ambiguous questions about probabilities are disguised less-ambiguous questions about payoffs, not claiming that people aren't able to make ambiguous statements about payoffs or that reframing in terms of payoffs can resolve ambiguity in any probability problem.
No I don't, and I'm surprised if the post gave the impression that I did. Thanks for the feedback and vote explanation though.
(ETA: I did not downvote you.)
To provide my feedback data point in the opposite direction, I found this to be well-expressed in the OP.
Same for me.