= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
maia comments on Rationality Quotes April 2012 - 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 (858)
True, a single data point can't give you knowledge of regression effects. In the context of the original problem, Kahneman assumed that you had access to the average score of all the golfers on the first day.
I'm not sure it's true that the answer is higher than 39700, in this case. It depends on if you have knowledge of how people generally improve, and if your score is higher than average for an absolute beginner. Since unknown factors could adjust the score either up or down, I would probably just guess that it will be the same the next day.
The existence of factors which could adjust the score either up or down does not indicate which factors dominate. In this case, you have no information which suggests that 39700 is either above or below the median, and therefore these two cases must be assigned equal probability - canceling out any "regression to the mean" effects you could have predicted. Similar arguments apply to other effects which change the score.
Not quite, you have some background information about the range of scores video games usually employ.
And, I suppose, information about the probability of people mentioning average scores. I concede that either factor could justify arguing that the score should decrease.
So you estimate "regression to the mean" effects as zero, and base your estimate on any other effects you know about and how strong you think they are. That makes sense. Thanks for the correction!