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.

Alejandro1 comments on Why we should err in both directions - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: owencb 21 August 2014 11:10AM

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

Comments (7)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Alejandro1 21 August 2014 03:17:56PM 8 points [-]

The example of the three locks brings to mind another possible failure of this principle: that it can be exploited by deliberately giving us additional choices. For example, perhaps in this example the cheap lock is perfectly adequate for our needs, but seeing the existence of an expensive lock makes us believe that the regular one is the one that has equal chance of erring in both directions. I believe I read (in LW? or in Marginal Revolution?) that restaurant menus and sales catalogs often include some outrageously priced items to induce customers to buy the second-tier priced items, which look reasonable in comparison, but are the ones where most profit is made. Attempts to shift the Overton Window in politics rely on the same principle.

Comment author: owencb 22 August 2014 10:30:18AM 2 points [-]

Good example. It highlights that although erring on both sides should be a necessary condition for optimality when there's a full spectrum, it certainly isn't sufficient (and so as a fast rule of thumb it can be misled).