Anti-reductionist comments on My Bayesian Enlightenment - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 October 2008 04:45PM

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

Comments (57)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Anti-reductionist 05 October 2008 05:49:35PM 0 points [-]

What's your justification for having P(she says "at least one is a boy" | 1B,1G) = P(she says "at least one is a girl" | 1B,1G)? Maybe the hypothetical mathematician is from a culture that considers it important to have at least one boy. (China was like that, IIRC)

Comment author: Romashka 20 April 2015 06:03:20PM 0 points [-]

As a twin, I always found it surprising how easily people assume that children's genders are independent. I saw it more like 'Kid1'<-'Fertilization specifics'->'Kid2', and if, as Wiki says, monozygotic twins occur in about 3 cases per 1000, and same-sex dizygotic twins occur in half cases of all dizygotic twins1, then it's not at all obvious that two children of the same mother have the same distribution of possible genders as two children of the same father or two random children at all. 1 - Wiki doesn't state the frequency of dizygotic twins.