You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Vaniver comments on Spring 1912: A New Heaven And A New Earth - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: Yvain 13 November 2010 05:11PM

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

Comments (287)

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

Comment author: Vaniver 22 November 2010 07:55:34PM *  1 point [-]

I suspect you're either talking about Den-Swe or Kie-Hol, but I'm having trouble naming a bias with regards to either of them.

Kie-Hol isn't just loss aversion because if Italy had gone to Munich, Italy would have grown- but if one assumed a 1/3rd chance of Italy going to Vienna, Munich, and Venice (which ignores the possibility of moving to Trieste), then moving to Hol would have been a 1/3rd gain (counting Italy's gain as negative), whereas moving to Mun returns 0. So perhaps this is "shut up and multiply" or "visibility bias"- only looking at the possibility that Italy would move to Munich, and ignoring the other three spots that would be good to go to?