= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Decimal digit computations as a testing ground for reasoning about probabilities - 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 (31)
I don't think this statement is correct since it contradicts the law of conservation of expected evidence, i.e., if you anticipate that knowing some piece of information would increase your probability estimate of something, then simply knowing that that piece of information exists should correspondingly increase your estimate unless you also suspect that knowing the information might actually decrease your estimate by a corresponding amount.
This is true. I meant assuming that the computations are sound, being personally involved would increase one's confidence relative to what it would otherwise be. I'll change the post accordingly.
If one had the inside info given by being part of the team, and this info decreased one's confidence, one wouldn't be part of the team.