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.

TimS comments on A question about Eliezer - Less Wrong Discussion

33 Post author: perpetualpeace1 19 April 2012 05:27PM

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

Comments (158)

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

Comment author: Larks 19 April 2012 07:23:40PM 13 points [-]

Yes, and the paper had several other big problems. For example, it didn't treat mild belief and certainty differently; someone who suspected Hilary might be the Democratic Nominee was treated as harshly as someone who was 100% sure the Danish were going to invade.

Worse, people get marked down for making conditional predictions whose antecedent was not satisfied! And then they have the audacity to claim that they've discovered that making conditional predictions predicts low accuracy.

They also penalise people for hedging, yet surely a hedged prediction is better than no prediction at all?

Comment author: TimS 19 April 2012 07:50:44PM 1 point [-]

someone who [made plausible but wrong prediction] was treated as harshly as someone who was 100% sure the Danish were going to invade.

That made me giggle.