lessdazed comments on [LINK] Being proven wrong is like winning the lottery - Less Wrong

29 Post author: Unnamed 29 October 2011 10:40PM

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

Comments (15)

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

Comment author: 110phil 30 October 2011 01:13:10PM 2 points [-]

The point is well-taken that there are causes other than ego, and I could have mentioned that in the post.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the hockey example, though.

Comment author: lessdazed 31 October 2011 07:59:43AM 0 points [-]

In the example, someone assumes that readers will not realize that a third party (The Bruins) having been wrong is good for them, even though there is no ego involved for most readers.

Comment author: 110phil 31 October 2011 02:01:55PM 1 point [-]

Ah, OK.

That's a slightly different case, though, isn't it? The author is not saying "it's good news for Boston [fans]" because they now are right when they were wrong before, and now their map is more accurate. Rather, he's saying that it's good news for Boston [fans] because the state of the world in the "right" case means more future Boston success than the state of the world in the "wrong" case.

Suppose Bergeron was doing well instead of poorly, and the author argued that it's because the coach is playing him too much and he's going to get tired or injured. In that case, the author might argue "Is Bergeron being played on every power play when he used to be played only rarely? If the answer is yes, it's actually bad news for Boston, believe it or not."

In other words, the "good news" and "bad news" don't seem to refer to the desirability of the map matching the territory. In this particular context, they refer to the desirability of the territory itself.

Comment author: lessdazed 31 October 2011 04:41:47PM *  1 point [-]

Great point Phil! I didn't see that, that is an important difference in the cases.

I had mentally automatically interpreted your point "it's bad to be wrong. Therefore, if you're wrong, the best thing is to *stop being wrong*. And the way to stop being wrong is to change your mind." as a special case of his, "the state of the world in the 'was wrong/am right' case means more future success than the state of the world in the 'was wrong/still wrong' case."