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.

BT_Uytya comments on The Heuristic About Representativeness Heuristic - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: BT_Uytya 12 September 2015 11:15PM

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

Comments (4)

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

Comment author: BT_Uytya 15 September 2015 09:08:37PM 0 points [-]

Thank you for your feedback.

Yes, I'm aware of likelihood ratios (and they're awesome, especially for log-odds). Earlier draft of this post ended at "the correct method for answering this query involves imagining world-where-H-is-true, imagining world-where-H-is-false and comparing the frequency of E between them", but I decided against it. And well, if some process involves X and Y, then it is correct (but maybe misleading) to say that in involves just X.

My point was that "what it does resemble?" (process where you go E -> H) was fundamentally different from "how likely is that?" (process where you go H -> E). If you calculate likelihood ratio using the-degree-of-resemblance instead of actual P(E|H) you will get wrong answer.

(Or maybe thinking about likelihood ratios will force you to snap out of representativeness heuristic, but I'm far from sure about it)

I think that I misjudged the level of my audience (this post is an expansion of /r/HPMOR/ comment) and hadn't made my point (that probabilistic thinking is more correct when you go H->E instead of vice versa) visible enough. Also, I was going to blog about likelihood ratios later (in terms of H->E and !H->E) — so again, wrong audience.

I now see some ways in which my post is debacle, and maybe it makes sense to completely rewrite it. So thank you for your feedback again.