MattG comments on Open thread, 11-17 March 2014 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: David_Gerard 11 March 2014 10:45PM

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

Comments (226)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 14 March 2014 01:51:44AM 1 point [-]

You don't need to assume that things are normally distributed to be a Bayesian.

But you do need to assume that somehow you can predict novel events based on previous data

Just going back to my stock market example, what variables would I have calibrated on to predict 9/11 and it's effects on the stock market?

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 March 2014 11:25:29AM *  1 point [-]

I'm not arguing that you can predict the stock market. What you can do is calibrate yourself enough to see that it's frequently doing things that you didn't predict.