Nominull comments on Why We Can't Take Expected Value Estimates Literally (Even When They're Unbiased) - Less Wrong

75 Post author: HoldenKarnofsky 18 August 2011 11:34PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: shminux 18 August 2011 06:49:12PM * -2 points [-]

Did I summarize your point correctly:

an instinctive reaction of the type "you are so full of it" to any poorly supported extravagant claim has a fancy name "Bayesian adjustment" and so can be trusted
singularity research is one such claim
GiveWell's charity metrics penalize charities with high uncertainties
Give to GiveWell if you want to be sure your donation is not wasted

Edit: not saying that I agree with this, just checking if my understanding is not off-base.

Comment author: Nominull 19 August 2011 06:15:49AM 2 points [-]

explaining the math behind our instincts is usually a worthy goal. you call it "bayesian" because it is, of course, bayesian.

Comments (249)