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.

BerryPick6 comments on The Wrongness Iceberg - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: alfredmacdonald 04 February 2013 09:02AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (27)
Tags: mental models map and territory

Comments (27)

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

Comment author: BerryPick6 04 February 2013 09:59:11AM 4 points [-]

What about the iceberg iceberg, when noticing your first iceberg you realize there was a metric ton of icebergs under the iceberg.

Or a recursive iceberg, where you realize there's a whole nautical mile worth of rabbit hole left to go down?

Comment author: alfredmacdonald 04 February 2013 10:42:27AM *  3 points [-]

I find that similar to the concept of fractal wrongness. What distinguishes an iceberg from a fractal is that you're in situations where someone is resisting exposing the whole iceberg for one reason or another. In the dishonesty scenario, you realize one lie reveals many others but only because that person has left you a tidbit of information that cracks their facade and allows you to infer just how deeply they've lied to you -- or in the case of attraction, an event or action that only would occur if they had a much greater level of attraction existing below the surface.

Comment author: DaFranker 04 February 2013 05:02:20PM *  2 points [-]

or in the case of attraction, an event or action that only would occur if they had a much greater level of attraction existing below the surface.

This seems misleading, à la Sherlock Holmes' "Eliminating the impossible". A charitable reading would parse as:

"or in the case of attraction, an event or action where the most probable world (as calculated with Bayes) in which it happens also requires a much greater level of attraction existing below the surface."

Just wanted to make sure I'm not inventing new interpretations and that there's no hidden inferential distance.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit