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.

PhilGoetz comments on A probability question - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: PhilGoetz 19 October 2012 10:34PM

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

Comments (27)

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

Comment author: PhilGoetz 19 October 2012 11:39:00PM 1 point [-]

You're reading it correctly, but I disagree with your conclusion. If Mayne says p=.7, and Szymborski says p=.8, and their estimates are independent - remember, my classifiers are not human experts, they are not correlated - then the final result must be greater than .8. You already thought p=.8 after hearing Szymborski. Mayne's additional opinion says Joe is more-likely than average to hit more than 10 home runs, and is based on completely different information than Szymborski's, so it should make Joe's chances increase, not decrease.

Comment author: ShardPhoenix 21 October 2012 05:27:34AM 0 points [-]

remember, my classifiers are not human experts, they are not correlated

Is that necessarily true? It seems that it should depend on whether they have underlying similarities (eg a similar systematic bias) in their algorithms.