= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Reliably wrong - 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 (19)
Possibly just an aesthetic preference. You probably have a point.
I think such people might exist when the possibilities for prediction are relatively constrained, but even then, some fraction of their consistent wrongness would be a matter of luck, and couldn't be used for prediction.
In fact, when the possibilities for prediction are relatively constrained, but there are a lot of people making predictions, and the system is complicated enough that you can't expect most people to be mostly right, we'd have some people being consistently wrong by chance alone.