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.

MattG comments on Open thread, 11-17 March 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: David_Gerard 11 March 2014 10:45PM

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

Comments (226)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 14 March 2014 01:51:44AM 1 point [-]

You don't need to assume that things are normally distributed to be a Bayesian.

But you do need to assume that somehow you can predict novel events based on previous data

Just going back to my stock market example, what variables would I have calibrated on to predict 9/11 and it's effects on the stock market?

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 March 2014 11:25:29AM *  1 point [-]

I'm not arguing that you can predict the stock market. What you can do is calibrate yourself enough to see that it's frequently doing things that you didn't predict.