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.

Gurkenglas comments on Open thread for January 1-7, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: NancyLebovitz 01 January 2014 03:54PM

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

Comments (142)

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

Comment author: Gurkenglas 03 January 2014 04:36:43PM *  2 points [-]

That leftmost of the five graphs, the one that shows in its shaded area the proportion of the hydra sample that still lives, confuses me. What could possibly cause a linear decrease in population? A constant probability of death given previous survival (podgps) would produce a decreasing exponential curve, but this requires a podgps for each individual that is exactly hyperbolically growing over time, for example through an internal candleclock that is at birth set to a uniformly distributed time between 0 and 1400 years.

(Yes, hyperbolically. As the time interval lengths during which we record whether the hydra died go to 0, the ratio of podgps between the last time segment and the, say, 3rd goes to infinity. The crux of the matter lies in "given previous survival" and if we leave that part out, the result would indeed be a constant line.)

Maybe the researchers found by experiment or hearsay that the hydra has a constant podgps, the graphmakers failed to record that last bit and simply took the negative integral of that absolute probability of death to generate that ridiculous population curve and then the authors found that that integral curve hits 0 at 1400 years and postulated that as their livespan.

(By the way, it's also troubling that they also left out the bit of the curve that would have indicated infant mortality.)

Comment author: VincentYu 04 January 2014 02:53:47AM *  1 point [-]

Full paper: Jones et al. (2013)

See the label for Figure 1. I'm not sure why army1987 retracted his comment, but he is correct: the y-axis is logarithmic for the survivorship curve. So the graph actually confirms your expectation and shows an exponential decrease in population.

(Unfortunately, the graph label in the National Geographic article is just wrong—there is no reasonable interpretation under which the logarithmic survivorship curve can be interpreted as a raw proportion.)

Comment author: [deleted] 04 January 2014 10:18:30AM *  1 point [-]

I'm not sure why army1987 retracted his comment,

On the last panel (that for hypericum) of the figure on the NatGeo page the red curve doesn't look like the negative derivative of the gray curve, so I assumed I was missing something.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 January 2014 05:51:18PM 0 points [-]

Maybe the y axis is logarithmic or something.