= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pedanterrific comments on Examine your assumptions - 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 (13)
This is kind of brilliant.
Seems (at least in retrospect) that its obviousness would be proportional to the percentage of bombers that didn't make it back at all.
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.
You're right, of course: I'd heard the story without working out the solution myself, and my mind leapt to the "obvious" solution.
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.
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.