= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
homunq comments on 2011 Less Wrong Census / Survey - 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 (694)
A good bayesian way to make that question quantitative would be, "If we ask you again in 10 years, how much do you expect your number to change? Express your answer as a factor of the percentage or the inverse percentage, whichever is smaller. So 1 would mean you expect no change, and 3 would mean you expect, with about 50% confidence, that your estimate and its inverse will both be more than a third and less than triple of what they are today."
I know that it should really be a matter of p(1-p) but that's close enough.
Oh, and taken, so one of the karma here is for that.
If I expect that my estimate will change in the future, why not change it now? I grant that it is highly likely that my estimates will change, but I don't know whether any particular estimate will change upward or downward, so for now they stay put.
I suppose what anticipation of change in a probability estimate practically means is that you expect new pieces of evidence to come in and that you have a fairly good idea what the magnitude of evidence will be, just not the sign.
I don't know which direction it will change, but for things I'm unsure of I expect more movement than for things I know more about. In bayesian terms, a weak prior.