= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Why We Can't Take Expected Value Estimates Literally (Even When They're Unbiased) - 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 (249)
Did I summarize your point correctly:
Edit: not saying that I agree with this, just checking if my understanding is not off-base.
explaining the math behind our instincts is usually a worthy goal. you call it "bayesian" because it is, of course, bayesian.
Actually, I had a negative reaction to this comment for the opposite reason- it seemed overly critical of the post. The first point seemed to be ignoring a fair amount of his argument, and instead focusing on criticizing what he named his method; the last point seemed to me to be impugning Holden's motives based off something he never actually said.
thanks!
Actually, they advocate that you should give to charities that both score highly on their metrics and pursue some goal that you yourself find worthy.
See also GiveWell's Do-It-Yourself Charity Evaluation Questions.