= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Johnicholas comments on Information cascades - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (32)
"An ideal bayesian wouldn't..." I apologize, I'm not following.
I was dismissing votes not contributing new information. The order of the votes is partly deduced. Regarding the part that isn't deduced, there is no evidence to update on, and the prior is included - it's the (6:4) factor.
Would you mind posting what the ideal bayesian's calculations would look like?
[Sorry for not answering earlier, I didn't find the inbox until recently.]
I perhaps was a bit unclear, but when I say "ideal bayesian" I mean a mathematical construct that does full bayesian updating i.e. incorporates all prior knowledge into its calculations. This is of course impossible for anyone not extremely ignorant of the world, which is why I called it a minor point.
An ideal bayesian calculation would include massive deductive work on e.g. the psychology of voting, knowledge of the functioning of this community in particular etc.
My comment wasn't really an objection. To do a full bayesian calculation of a real world problem is comparable to using quantum mechanics for macroscopic systems. One must use approximations; the hard part is knowing when they break down.