= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Amanda Knox Guilty Again - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (61)
It's confusing to call making of unverifiable predictions a "bad habit" (not specific, noncentral); it just doesn't have the additional benefit of teaching you calibration. Learning from verified predictions is one of multiple things that can be done to improve the accuracy of predictions, including unverifiable ones. If you are making very long-term verifiable predictions, there is little opportunity to learn from their verification, so in this case the distinction breaks down.
I'd say there's two related bad habits: 1: making exclusively unverifiable predictions, and 2: expecting or acting as if you were expecting to be more accurate in your unverifiable statements than in verifiable ones.
edit: those two often go together. There's a huge supply of cheap verification in the homework sections of the textbooks. Armchair physicists barely tap into this supply. edit: and by barely I mean pretty much none ever do.
Topics such as Amanda Knox trial or LHC finding the Higgs, it seems to me that for such predictions the dopamine pleasure of success is larger than the feeling of failure, and the betting on those is thus somewhat wirehead-y. May still be good for calibration though.