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.

MrMind comments on Open thread, Feb. 01 - Feb. 07, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 01 February 2016 08:24AM

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

Comments (177)

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

Comment author: WhyAsk 03 February 2016 05:23:38PM *  0 points [-]

Let's say I make six predictions or statements that I believe to be true about someone I've never met and I say the statements taken as a whole are true with P = 0.7. Note that I do not claim to be psychic.

The P of each statement must then lie between 0.7 and 1.0, and if they are equal then the P of each statement is 0.7 ^ (1/6) = 0.94. Let's say 0.9 because I doubt any statement about this type of probability should be reported with two significant figures, and perhaps even one significant figure without an attached tolerance band is a bit of a stretch.

I'd say that a P this high for each statement, given this example, is well nigh impossible.

Agreed?

Maybe I'm not so underqualified as to be unable to enjoy this forum.

Comment author: MrMind 04 February 2016 08:55:09AM 0 points [-]

Everything Lumifer said, plus:

P(A), P(B) >= P(A /\ B)

and using log-odds allows for some finer psychological control over tiny value of probability (see Jaynes book).