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.

Romashka comments on Open thread, Mar. 9 - Mar. 15, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: MrMind 09 March 2015 07:48AM

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

Comments (109)

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

Comment author: Romashka 11 March 2015 07:03:00PM 1 point [-]

Why does the likelihood grow exactly twice? (I'm just used to really indirect evidence, which is also seldom binary in the sense that I only get to see whole suits of traits, which usually go together but in some obscure cases, vary in composition. So I guess I have plenty of C-bits that do go in B-bits that might go in A-bits, but how do I measure the change in likelihood of A given C? I know it has to do with d-separation, but if C is something directly observable, like biomass, and B is an abstraction, like species, should I not derive A (an even higher abstraction, like 'adaptiveness of spending early years in soil') from C? There are just so much more metrics for C than for B...) Sorry for the ramble, I just felt stupid enough to ask anyway. If you were distracted from answering the parent, please do.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 29 March 2015 02:52:20AM 1 point [-]

I don't understand what you're asking, but I was wrong to say the likelihood grows by 2. See my reply to myself above.