= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Naming the Highest Virtue of Epistemic Rationality - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (28)
A point of math: log(a) < 0 when 0<a<1, so your proposed measure is negative and gets smaller and smaller the more "epistemically successful" you are. Is this really your intention? To clarify a bit, sum of logs = log of product, and product of probabilities tends to zero as you pile on more of them (cf. the Conjunction fallacy)
I'll change it around a bit to include that. Thanks
Yes, it is of course. The more you claim the more opportunity for failure. Obviously the person with the least negative score is the person with the highest bayesian competence. But perhaps that should be weighted by the number of beliefs you assing anything to. However, assuming all English speakers have access to about the same number of sentences, and that they assign probabilities to all of them, I hold by the original formulation.