= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dlthomas comments on 2011 Survey Results - 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 (513)
I'd force log odds, as they are the more natural representation and much less susceptible to irrational certainty and nonsense answers.
Someone has to actually try and comprehend what they are doing to troll logits; -INF seems a lot more out to lunch than p = 0.
I'd also like someone to go thru the math to figure out how to correctly take the mean of probability estimates. I see no obvious reason why you can simply average [0, 1] probability. The correct method would probably involve cooking up a hypothetical bayesian judge that takes everyones estimates as evidence.
Edit: since logits can be a bit unintuitive, I'd give a few calibration examples like odds of rolling a 6 on a die, odds of winning some lottery, fair odds, odds of surviving a car crash, etc.
Weighting, in part, by the calibration questions?
I dunno how you would weight it. I think you'd want to have a maxentropy 'fair' judge at least for comparison.
Calibration questions are probably the least controversial way of weighting. Compare to, say, trying to weight using karma.
This might be an interesting thing to develop. A voting system backed up by solid bayes-math could be useful for more than just LW surveys.
It might be interesting to see what results are produced by several weighting approaches.
yeah. that's what I was getting at with the maxentropy judge.
On further thought, I really should look into figuring this out. Maybe I'll do some work on it and post a discussion post. This could be a great group rationality tool.