Eugine_Nier comments on [SEQ RERUN] But There's Still A Chance, Right? - Less Wrong

5 Post author: MinibearRex 16 December 2011 03:03AM

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

Comments (10)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 16 December 2011 07:21:43AM *  1 point [-]

Sometimes, you calculate the probability of a certain event and find that the number is so unbelievably small that your brain really can't keep track of how small it is, any more than you can spot an individual grain of sand on a beach from 100 meters off. But, because you're already thinking about that event enough to calculate the probability of it, it feels like it's still worth keeping track of. It's not.

This seems to contradict the point of the Einstein's Arrogance post.

Comment author: khafra 16 December 2011 01:19:29PM *  1 point [-]

I had thought of Einstein's Arrogance as being about the enormous amount of unstated and perhaps unconscious bayesian evidence Einstein had that his model was correct. I'm not making the inductive step from there to "just forget about winning the lottery."

edit: I just realized the reading that makes sense: If you calculate the probability of a certain event, and the number is unbelievably small, you probably made a mistake in your calculations; or your intuition wouldn't have brought up the event in the first place.

I think there's plenty of room for both to be correct: Your intuition is evidence, but if you make an explicit probability calculation and it contradicts your intuition, be aware that due to a number of biases, you're still likely to overweight the probability.