= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TraderJoe comments on Raising the forecasting waterline (part 1) - 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 (108)
[comment deleted]
Ratio of true statements to false ones: low. Probability TraderJoe wants to make TheOtherDave look foolish: moderate, slightly on the higher end. Ratio of the probability that giving an obviously false statement an answer of relatively high probability would make TheOtherDave look foolish to the probability that giving an obviously true statement a relatively low probability would make TheOtherDave look foolish: moderately high. Probability that the statement is neither true nor false: low.
Conclusion: أنا من (أمريك is most likely false.
That's interesting.
I considered a proposition like this, decided the ratio was roughly even, concluded that TraderJoe might therefore attempt to predict my answer (and choose their question so I'd be wrong), decided they'd have no reliable basis on which to do so and would know that, and ultimately discarded the whole line of reasoning.
I figured that it would be more embarrassing to say something like "It is true that I am a sparkly unicorn" than to say "It is false that an apple is a fruit". Falsehoods are much more malleable, largely as an effect of the fact that there are so many more of them than truths, also because they don't have to be consistent. Since falsehoods are more malleable it seems that they'd be more likely to be ones used in an attempt to insult someone.
My heuristic in situations with recursive mutual modeling is to assume that everyone else will discard whatever line of reasoning is recursive. I then go one layer deeper into the recursion than whatever the default assumption is. It works well.
Sadly, I appear to lack your dizzying intellect.
I used to play a lot of Rock, Paper, Scissors; I'm pretty much a pro.
It is possible that you may have missed TheOtherDave's allusion there.
The phrase sounded familiar, but I don't recognize where it's from and a Google search for "lack your dizzying intellect" yielded no results.
Wait. Found it. Princess Bride? Is it in the book too, or just the movie?
Read the book years ago, but can't recall if that phrase is in there. In any case, yes, that's what I was referring to... it's my favorite fictional portrayal of recursive mutual modeling.
Both. [EDITED: oops, no, misread you. Definitely in the movie; haven't read the book.]
Preempt: None of you have any way of knowing whether this is a lie.
The parent of this comment (yes, this one) is a lie.
The parent of this comment (yes, this one) is a lie.
The parent of this comment is true. On my honor as a rationalist.
I would like people to try to solve the puzzle.
This comment (yes, this one) is true.
I think the solution is that you have no honor as a rationalist.
The solution I had in mind is:
Therefore the grandparent of this comment is true, the greatgrandparent is true, the greatgreatgrandparent is false, and the greatgreatgreat grandparent is inaccurate.
PBEERPG.
I assume you mean without looking it up.
My answer is roughly the same as TimS's... it mostly depends on "Would TraderJoe pick a true statement in this context or a false one?" Which in turn mostly depends on "Would a randomly selected LWer pick a true statement in this context or a false one?" since I don't know much about you as a distinct individual.
I seem to have a prior probability somewhat above 50% for "true", though thinking about it I'm not sure why exactly that is.
Looking it up, it amuses me to discover that I'm still not sure if it's true.
I voted with what I thought my previous estimate was before I'd checked via rot13.
[comment deleted]
It seems like my guess should be based on how likely I think it is that your are trying to trick me in some sense. I assume you didn't pick a sentence at random.
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
The transliteration does, but the actual Arabic means "V'z Sebz Nzrevpn".
So in fact TraderJoe's prediction of 0.5 was a simple average over the two statements given, and everyone else giving a prediction failed to take into account that the answer could be neither "true" nor "false".
Not according to google translate. Incidentally, that string is particularly easy to uncypher by inspection.
[comment deleted]
Yeah, that's an interesting discrepancy.