= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Annoyance comments on The Sin of Underconfidence - 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 (176)
Overconfidence and underconfidence both imply a non-optimal amount of confidence. It's a little oxymoronic to claim that underconfidence is an excellent strategy - if it's an excellent strategy then it's presumably not underconfidence. I assume what you are actually claiming is that in general most people would get better results by being less confident than they are? Or are you claiming that relative to accurate judgements of probability of success it is better to consistently under rather than over estimate?
You claim that overconfidence is usually costlier than underconfidence. There are situations where overconfidence has potentially very high cost (overconfidently thinking you can safely overtake on a blind bend perhaps) but in many situations the costs of failure are not as severe as people tend to imagine. Overconfidence (in the sense of estimating greater probability of success than is accurate) can usefully compensate for over estimating the cost of failure in my experience.
You seem to have a pattern of responding to posts with unsupported statements that appear designed more to antagonize than to add useful information to the conversation.
"Overconfidence and underconfidence both imply a non-optimal amount of confidence."
Not in the sense of logical implication. The terms refer to levels of confidence greater or lesser than they should be, with the criteria utilized determining what 'should' means in context. The utility of the level of confidence isn't necessarily linked to its accuracy.
Although accuracy is often highly useful, there are times when it's better to be inaccurate, or to be inaccurate in a particular way, or a particular direction.
"You seem to have a pattern of responding to posts with unsupported statements"
I can support my statements, and support my supports, and support my support supports, but I can't provide an infinite chain of supports. No one can. The most basic components of any discussion stand by themselves, and are validated or not by comparison with reality. Deal with it.
"that appear designed more to antagonize than to add useful information to the conversation"
They're crafted to encourage people to think and to facilitate that process to the degree to which that is possible. I can certainly see how people uninterested in thinking would find that unhelpful, even antagonizing. So?
Why is confidence or lack thereof an issue aside from personal introspection?
If you are under confident you may pass up risky but worthwhile opportunities, or spend resources on unnecessary safety measures. As for over confidince see hubris. Also welcome to less wrong.