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.

gwern comments on [LINK] Amanda Knox exonerated - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: fortyeridania 28 March 2015 06:15AM

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

Comments (58)

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

Comment author: V_V 28 March 2015 09:12:07PM *  1 point [-]

By looking at the genderless conditional probability ('somebody'), you're implying that women like Knox might have male-like murder levels, which is obviously wrong.

No, male-like murder levels would be higher than genderless murder levels. And, if I understand correctly, most of the excess male murder rate involves gang-related violence, which in this case was pretty clearly not involved.

Anyway, I agree that if you are doing pure Bayesian inference you have to condition on all kinds of available evidence, including gender, race, social class, nationality, etc. But we can't expect courts to consider this kind of evidence, for good reasons (avoid creating self-fulfilling prophecies and avoid incentivizing crime within certain demographics).

Comment author: gwern 28 March 2015 10:41:45PM 1 point [-]

No, male-like murder levels would be higher than genderless murder levels.

...and what do you think that implies about whether female murder levels are lower as I claimed?

And, if I understand correctly, most of the excess male murder rate involves gang-related violence, which in this case was pretty clearly not involved.

Yeah, no. Think about that a little bit. (Also, please note the irony of responding to criticism about not conditioning by claiming it would be neutralized by further conditioning.)

Comment author: V_V 29 March 2015 09:48:12AM 0 points [-]

(Also, please note the irony of responding to criticism about not conditioning by claiming it would be neutralized by further conditioning.)

If the updates on different kinds of evidence would likely cancel each other, it is an argument for avoiding conditioning too hard or privileging one kind of evidence while doing informal reasoning.