Desrtopa comments on Examine your assumptions - Less Wrong

32 Post author: Douglas_Reay 30 March 2012 11:28AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (13)

Comments (13)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Desrtopa 30 March 2012 03:44:38PM 0 points [-]

I had heard of the survey of damaged planes which came up with the "counterintuitive" idea of adding armor to the parts that were found undamaged, but this is the first time I've heard of another group coming to the opposite conclusion.

Comment author: wedrifid comment score below threshold [+] (7 children)

Comment author: pedanterrific 30 March 2012 04:33:12PM 4 points [-]

Blackett suggested that, instead, the armour be placed in the areas which were completely untouched by damage in the bombers which returned. He reasoned that the survey was biased, since it only included aircraft that returned to Britain. The untouched areas of returning aircraft were probably vital areas, which, if hit, would result in the loss of the aircraft.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 30 March 2012 08:09:24PM 3 points [-]

This is kind of brilliant.

Comment author: khafra 02 April 2012 05:53:28PM 1 point [-]

Seems (at least in retrospect) that its obviousness would be proportional to the percentage of bombers that didn't make it back at all.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 02 April 2012 06:08:09PM 3 points [-]

In retrospect, sure. But regardless of how many bombers get shot down, it takes a certain clarity of mind to look at the survivors and realize that the damage they've received isn't necessarily representative of the damage the non-survivors received.

On consideration, I suspect the inverse error gets made quite a lot when analyzing failure modes in situations where failure renders an instance unavailable for further analysis.

Comment author: khafra 02 April 2012 07:14:47PM 0 points [-]

You're right, of course: I'd heard the story without working out the solution myself, and my mind leapt to the "obvious" solution.

I suspect the inverse error gets made quite a lot when analyzing failure modes in situations where failure renders an instance unavailable for further analysis.

s/inverse error/identical error? I'm having trouble imagining the inverse error, unless it's leaning too hard on boolean, non-probabilistic anthropic reasoning and ignoring real damage distributions.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 02 April 2012 07:20:55PM 0 points [-]

I meant the error that was (sloppily phrased) the inverse of "look at the survivors and realize that the damage they've received isn't necessarily representative of the damage the non-survivors received". So, yes, the identical error to the one we've been discussing all along.

Desrtopa comments on Examine your assumptions - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (13)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (13)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login