= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Michaelos comments on Conservation of Expected Jury Probability - 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 (5)
I think I have an idea of what they might be attempting to model, but I do see a few phrases that aren't clear on the site if that is the case.
There are three possibilities I think they are attempting to model:
A: Defense strikes you. (Because you seem to favor the plaintiff too much)
B: Plaintiff strikes you. (Because you seem to favor the defense too much)
C: Neither side strikes you. You remain on the jury.
What they might be trying to say is that income <$50k might increase the chance of A and income>=$50k might increase the chance of C.
So 'No effect on either Lawyer' might be better phrased as 'Given that answer you may be more likely to remain on the jury.'
Some answers would presumably have to indicate that because the two lawyers can't strike everyone.
Another way of making Jeff's point: in the same way plaintiff lawyers favor jurors with low incomes, perhaps defense lawyers should favor jurors with high incomes because they don't have the problem of being overly generous with damage rewards.