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.

ChristianKl comments on Open thread, Nov. 24 - Nov. 30, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: MrMind 24 November 2014 08:56AM

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

Comments (317)

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

Comment author: ChristianKl 25 November 2014 03:56:57PM 0 points [-]

It's very "Black Swan".

I don't think you understand what the term means. It's unknown unknowns and not known unknowns. Whether or not an unproven product will succeed is a question about a known unknown.

This is especially true in fast-changing or competitive markets, where the only way to collect more evidence without direct risk is to let your competitors jump in the water first.

I don't think that's true. There are various forms of doing market research that simply involve money but not additional risk.

Comment author: Punoxysm 25 November 2014 04:25:18PM *  0 points [-]

I use "Black Swan" in the context of the whole book. That is, we build narratives after-the-fact to explain correct priors as skill and judgment. Also, the greater impact of more uncertain decisions, in a way that ties uncertainty to the impact, is exactly the nature of unknown-unknown black swans (which I'd say the launching of a substantially new product category fits into, in a mild form. The iPod/iTunes was not a black swan for Apple, though they took considerable risks with it. It was a black swan for the music industry.).

Market research is better than nothing, but still has many problems. Most of it wouldn't pass peer review, and we know peer review makes plenty of mistakes. So when taking it into account, decision-makers must apply strong priors.

And on the occasions that market research really is that good, it's a no-brainer; your competitors will do it too.

Comment author: TimS 26 November 2014 05:03:30PM *  2 points [-]

I use "Black Swan" in the context of the whole book

Please don't take terminology with fairly precise meaning and use it idiosyncratically. At best, you unnecessary increase your inferential distance. At worst, you dilute the term so that it increases everyone's inferential distance.

Comment author: Punoxysm 27 November 2014 02:50:41AM *  1 point [-]

Edited for clarity. Thought terms get diluted all the time.

Maybe "Talebian" would be more appropriate.