= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jsalvatier comments on A Valuable Asset in Your Intellectual Portfolio is Not the Same as a Good Guide - 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 (8)
This reads like a glorification of quantitative differences into a qualitative difference. Why reify this guide/portfolio distinction?
And why is that?
Is that because they are literally as wrong as they are right, that they are competitive only with a random number generator/max-ent predictor? If they are, then that's a very peculiar sort of insight they are offering; why do you think you are free of the crippling biases that apparently reduce their otherwise insightful analyses to random noise?
Is it because they are only somewhat more right than wrong, but they do beat random guesses? Then knowing their opinion should move your decision somewhat. (Do they not move your decision at all? But we specified they were better than randomness, and so ignoring their opinion is throwing away some amount of information.) But then, they are also somewhat equivalent to your guide - but only somewhat.
I don't think this is a well written article, but
is not right. OP might ignore them because his knowledge screens all the information in their opinions. For example, that might be true if he had studied relevant topics and was already an expert in Industrial Organization.
I think the OP's point would be better said as something like "you should only update your probabilities when a person's opinion gives additional information rather than when they are an expert."