= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on 2012 Survey Results - 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 (640)
I hear Britain's school system is much better than the US's.
Once you control for demographics, the US public school system actually performs relatively well.
Good point.
The UK high school system does not cover Bayes Theorem.
If you choose maths as one of your A-levels, there's a good chance you will cover stats 1 which includes the formula for Bayes' Theorem and how to apply it to calculate medical test false positives/false negatives (and equivalent problems). However it isn't named and the significance to science/rationality is not explained, so it's just seen as "one more formula to learn".
Offhand, 1/2 young people do A levels, 1/4 of those do maths, and 2/3 of those do stats, giving us 1/12 of young people. I don't think any of these numbers are off by enough to push the fraction over 25%
Maybe you guys could solve that problem by publishing some results demonstrating its exteme significance
As far as I know, it's been formally demonstrated to be the absolutely mathematically-optimal method of achieving maximal hypothesis accuracy in an environment with obscured, limited or unreliable information.
That's basically saying: "There is no possible way to do better than this using mathematics, and as far as we know there doesn't yet exist anything more powerful than mathematics."
What more could you want? A theorem proving that any optimal decision theory must necessarily use Bayesian updating? ETA: It has been pointed out that there already exists such a theorem. I could've found that out by looking it up. Oops.
There already is such a theorem. From Wikipedia:
As far as I can tell from wikipedia's description of admissibility, it makes the same assumptions as CDT: That the outcome depends only on your action and the state of the environment, and not on any other properties of your algorithm. This assumption fails in multi-player games.
So your quote actually means: If you're going to use CDT then Bayes is the optimal way to derive your probabilities.
It's not great by international standards, but I have heard that the US system is particularly bad for an advanced country.
In terms of outcomes, the US does pretty terribly when considered 1 country, but when split into several countries it appears at the top of each class. Really, the EU is cheating by considering itself multiple countries.
The EU arguably is more heterogeneous than the US. But then, India is even more so.
How's it being split?
I actually thought someone would dig up and provide the relevant link by now. I'll have to find it.
You mean comparing poorer states to poorer countries?
Actually it is quite good (even for an "advanced country") if you compare the test scores of, say, Swedes and Swedish-Americans rather than Swedes and Americans as a whole.
I wonder what that's controlling for? Cultural tendencies to have different levels of work ethic?
Hmmm. So it's "good" but people with the wrong genes are spoiling the average somehow.