Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

po8crg comments on Burdensome Details - Less Wrong

30 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 September 2007 11:46PM

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

Comments (28)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: po8crg 21 September 2012 05:53:25PM 0 points [-]

Depends on people's definition of truth, surely?

If your scoring system for a conjunction statement where one part is true and the other is untrue is to score that as half-true, then the probabilities for the Reagan case are wholly reasonable.

(ie for "Reagan will provide federal support for unwed mothers and cut federal support to local governments", you score 1 for both parts true, 0.5 for one part true and 0 for neither part true, while for "Reagan will provide federal support for unwed mothers" you can only score 1 for true and 0 for false).

If - and it seems reasonable - the intuitive scoring system for a conjunctive statement is similar to this, then the predictions are wholly reasonable.

This means that when there is a real conjunction, we tend to misinterpret it. It seems reasonable then to guess that we don't have an intuitive approach to a true conjunction. If that's the case, then the approach to overcoming the bias is to analyse joint statements to see if a partial truth scores any points - if it does, then our intuition can be trusted more than when it does not.