Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

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

67 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.

Comments (243)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Larks 20 August 2011 08:29:02PM 0 points [-]

There seems to be nothing in EEV that penalizes relative ignorance or relatively poorly grounded estimates, or rewards investigation and the forming of particularly well grounded estimates. If I can literally save a child I see drowning by ruining a $1000 suit, but in the same moment I make a wild guess that this $1000 could save 2 lives if put toward medical research, EEV seems to indicate that I should opt for the latter.

I don't understand this objection. What sort of subjective probability are we meant to be ascribing to the 'wild guess'? If less than 0.5, as would seem appropriate for a 'wild guess', then you still save the child. If greater than 0.5, it doesn't seem to be a wild guess at all, but a firmly supported belief, and it's entirely reasonable to donate to medical research.