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.

Mitchell_Porter comments on Unintentional bayesian - Less Wrong Discussion

4 [deleted] 15 February 2013 10:46AM

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

Comments (13)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 15 February 2013 12:05:43PM 9 points [-]

I had been an unintentional bayesian for my whole life!

What's your concept of a "bayesian"?

Comment author: [deleted] 15 February 2013 12:18:49PM 1 point [-]

Somebody who incorporates evidence to update a belief's degree of truthfulness.

Does this explanation sound right?

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 15 February 2013 02:59:27PM 5 points [-]

If you compared probabilities of models based on consistency with the data and their overall plausibility, I'd call that close enough to be on the outskirts of Bayesian - and with the qualifier 'unintentional', which indicates that you're not going to be precisely formally correct, I'd say it fits.

Comment author: ygert 15 February 2013 12:56:08PM 1 point [-]

Well, to actually call yourself a bayesian, some may say that you have to explicitly use Bayes theorem to do the updates. To avoid confusion, you may wish to use a more accurate term. Around here we use them term "rationalist" in the sense you were using "bayesian", and more people will understand you if that is the word you use. Ultimately, it's just a question of words, but you do want to avoid confusion and have people understand you, so it is a good idea to use words in the style others use them.

Comment author: [deleted] 15 February 2013 01:06:50PM *  4 points [-]

Duly noted.

I won't, however, replace the word 'bayesian' from this article's title and body with 'rationalist' so that others may learn from my confusion.