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

Ronak comments on Bayesianism for humans: "probable enough" - Less Wrong

38 Post author: BT_Uytya 02 September 2014 09:44PM

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

Comments (7)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Ronak 10 September 2014 06:47:54AM 3 points [-]

The 'how to think of planning fallacy' I grokked was 'people while planning don't simulate the scenario in enough detail and don't see potential difficulties,'* so this is new to me. Or rather, what you say is in some sense part of the way I thought, except I didn't simulate it in enough detail to realise that I should understand it in a probabilistic sense as well, so it's new to me when it shouldn't be.

*In fact, right now I'm procrastinating goign and telling my prof that an expansion I told him I'd do is infinite.