= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SquirrelInHell comments on Attempts to Debias Hindsight Backfire! - 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 (9)
Meta:
the third section is written in a way that makes it hard to parse. E.g.:
The previous setup was different, and it's unclear what it means to have "replicated results". Sure, it's possible to guess, but it obfuscates your writing a lot. Or if you want people to guess, just put a question in the article telling them to do so.
I meant that the control condition replicated (reproduced, demonstrated once more) the result found in previous publications on the hindsight bias, namely that subjects view known outcomes as far more inevitable than they would have before the outcome was known. Maybe "results from previous studies" would fix this...? I thought it was clear enough, but I would.
"results from previous studies" doesn't fix it;
neither does "subjects view known outcomes as far more inevitable";
Be concrete!
e.g. "Later, they were asked to recall what their predictions were. The subjects, on average, remembered a higher confidence in their past prediction that Bush would win, compared to what had reported before the election."
Again - be concrete. By and large, avoid any dangling references to "previous results", or even previous sections of the same article.