<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
<channel>
<title>
[link] Bruce Schneier on Cognitive Biases in Risk Analysis - Less Wrong
</title> <link>http://lesswrong.com/</link>
<description></description>
<item>
<title>[link] Bruce Schneier on Cognitive Biases in Risk Analysis</title>
<link>http://lesswrong.com/lw/5ja/link_bruce_schneier_on_cognitive_biases_in_risk/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://lesswrong.com/lw/5ja/link_bruce_schneier_on_cognitive_biases_in_risk/</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 04:37:42 +1000</pubDate>
<description>
Submitted by &lt;a href="http://lesswrong.com/user/alexflint"&gt;alexflint&lt;/a&gt;
&amp;bull;
8 votes
&amp;bull;
&lt;a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/5ja/link_bruce_schneier_on_cognitive_biases_in_risk/#comments"&gt;1 comment&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;p&gt;A very clear-minded introduction to map-vs-territory ideas in the context of risk analysis. Nothing particularly new here, though the specific examples he gives may be of interest to LW readers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ted.com/talks/bruce_schneier.html&quot;&gt;http://www.ted.com/talks/bruce_schneier.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/5ja/link_bruce_schneier_on_cognitive_biases_in_risk/#comments"&gt;1 comment&lt;/a&gt;
</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>XFrequentist on [link] Bruce Schneier on Cognitive Biases in Risk Analysis</title>
<link>http://lesswrong.com/lw/5ja/link_bruce_schneier_on_cognitive_biases_in_risk/43g6</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://lesswrong.com/lw/5ja/link_bruce_schneier_on_cognitive_biases_in_risk/43g6</guid>
<dc:date>2011-05-05T04:14:17.216979+10:00</dc:date>
<description>
&lt;div class=&quot;md&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks, interesting!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I've been thinking about writing an article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;risk assessment&lt;/a&gt; as a worthwhile field of study or source of tools for LWers. The upshot is that it offers a pretty good rationality toolbox and there are lots of jobs, but it's suboptimal in some important ways.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I took a course on health risk assessment and it came pretty close to being Rationality 101 - covered the gamut from probability theory to expected utility to cognitive biases.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;ETA: Googling something else returned &lt;a href=&quot;http://lesswrong.com/lw/rg/la602_vs_rhic_review/&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;, which I hadn't read but is presents an excellent example of the kind of thing I mean by &quot;suboptimal&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>