= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on A note about calibration of confidence - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (35)
Let's be naughty and look at it from the frequentist perspective. What does 50% Jeb Bush is the top polling Republican candidate mean?
It translates into 50% of the possible worlds have Jeb as the top polling Republican candidate. Does that mean the person making that statement says 50 out of 100 possible worlds have Jeb Bush as the top pooling Republican candidate but not 49 or 51 possible worlds?
Maybe it should be read as in between 45 and 54 possible world Jeb is top polling in some contests but being read as between 30 and 70 possible worlds in other contexts.
I'm really not so sure what a frequentist would think. How would they express "Jeb Bush will not be the top-polling Republican candidate" in the form of a repeated random experiment?
It seems to me more likely that a frequentist would object to applying probabilities to such a statement.