Lumifer comments on How valuable is it to learn math deeply? - Less Wrong

20 Post author: JonahSinick 02 September 2013 06:01PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (79)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 11 October 2013 04:33:11PM 0 points [-]

That may require prohibitively large sample sizes, i.e. not be testable.

At least for certain populations the sample sizes should be pretty large. Also a smaller-than-desired sample size doesn't mean it's not testable, all it means is that your confidence in the outcome will be lower.

proxies generally fare even worse far from the mean than you'd expect from regression alone

Yes, I agree. The tails are a problem in general, estimation in the tails gets very fuzzy very quickly.

Comment author: private_messaging 11 October 2013 04:39:35PM 1 point [-]

Yes, I agree. The tails are a problem in general, estimation in the tails gets very fuzzy very quickly.

And it seems to me that having studied math complete with boring exercises could help with understanding of that somewhat... all too often you see people not even ballpark by just how much necessary application of regression towards the mean affects the rarity.