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.

Error comments on 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey - Call For Critiques/Questions - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: Yvain 11 October 2014 06:39AM

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

Comments (269)

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

Comment author: Error 11 October 2014 02:34:13PM 1 point [-]

For estimated probabilities that are greater than 99%, or less than 1%, how many digits of accuracy do you wish the answer to be?

I would be quite surprised if any of us could justifiably estimate any of those questions to an accuracy better than the nearest 1%/epsilon offset.

Comment author: DataPacRat 11 October 2014 02:37:58PM 4 points [-]

I regularly think in terms of decibans, where 10 decibans = 90% confidence, 20 = 99%, 30 = 99.9%, 40 = 99.99%, etc. From that perspective, there's as much difference between 99% and 99.9% as there is between 99.9% and 99.99%. Put another way, if 99% is the cut-off, then anything more than 20 decibans of evidence is ignored, even if the answerer has at least 40 decibans.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 October 2014 05:18:49PM -1 points [-]

And yet every year lots and lots of respondents answer such questions with 0 or 100.