1.) I no longer subscribe to the concept of belief.
2.) By definition and research, belief is a concept that especially permits ignorance of evidence. (See google definition of belief...)
3.) Such a model, while permitting evidence based thoughts, otherwise largely permits ignorance of evidence!
4.) Instead, I contact scientific thinking, something which has long permitted mankind to make mistakes, but however, largely facilitating keenness of evidence, contrary to the concept of belief!
I'm confused, and surely wrong, about the cancer example.
1 in 10000 people are sick. 1 sick person : 9999 well persons
multiply by 100: 100 sick people : 999900 well persons
99% of the sick people have positive tests: (0.99 * 100 = ) 99 Positive tests
1% of the well people have false positive tests: (0.01 * 999900 = 9999)
Using the odds view: number of sick persons with positive tests / total number of persons with positive tests: (99 / (99 + 9999) = 99 / 10098. Multiply top and bottom by (1/99) => (99/99) / (10098/99) = 1 / 102. The text says the answer is 1 / 101.010101... which is 99/10000.
So, try the waterfall method.
prior odds of being sick: 1 in 10000.
Being sick: 1
Being well: 9999
chance of having positive test while sick: 99
chance of having positive test while well: 1
odds of being sick given positive test: (1 / 9999) * (99 / 1) = 99 / 9999 = 0.00990099
probability of being sick given positive test: 99 / (99+9999) = 1 / 102 from above.
Where did I go wrong? Thanks in advance for any time you have!
In case a new user is confused by hovering a green link and seeing the popup suddenly poof in; in that case, the blue link gives them a simple way to "just click" something with no unexpected behavior.
What about calling this page the "tutorial" rather than "guide"? Tutorials are more likely to be interactive. And both the main and explore tabs feel more like what I would expect a "guide" to be than this page.
Guided walk-through or guided path would also work.
Joe made a good point about the way this is phrased not sorting people quite right:
joe [11:50 AM]
“bad at math” = out of Arbital’s range
eric_bruylant [11:50 AM]
currently, yes
the bad at math we're talking about is significantly a psychological aversion, not lack of background
joe [11:51 AM]
I’d say one of the things you might want to do
is to … oh
eric_bruylant [11:51 AM]
and we can't do therapy yet
joe [11:51 AM]
in that case, I think it’s somewhat poorly worded
because some people who are not psychologically averse might still consider themselves “bad at math”
just because they never really put any effort into it
like, they can’t multiply two-digit numbers, but they’d whip out a calculator if they had to
anyway: I’d say one of the things you might want to do is to have a list of problems that those people should be able to understand the full meaning of, although not necessarily solve
eric_bruylant [11:52 AM]
hm, yea. I kinda agree, though I'm not sure how to get all the people with an aversion
joe [11:53 AM]
I’d say more, “I don’t like math.”
eric_bruylant [11:53 AM]
since many of them won't realize the issue is an aversion rather than them being bad at math
that seems like an improvement to me
I'll put a mark on the page about it
joe [11:54 AM]
and I’d reword math 0 to “I don’t hate math, but I’m not particularly good at it.” (edited)
since Math 0 is supposed to represent “not very skilled”
eric_bruylant [11:54 AM]
seems good
joe [11:54 AM]
so they are “bad at math”, just not bad enough to have a phobia around it
Note: I'm not certain about the alternate wording, and meant to suggest changes to the math 0 or math 1 pages rather than directly here. I may also be missing something, so am letting Nate or EY check/rewrite rather than approving.
a.) As Neil Tyson Degrasse expresses, science is true regardless of belief:
b.) Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtBnm0X50VQ
1.) I no longer subscribe to the concept of belief.
2.) By definition and research, belief is a concept that especially permits ignorance of evidence. (See google definition of belief...)
3.) Such a model, while permitting evidence based thoughts, otherwise largely permits ignorance of evidence!
4.) Instead, I contact scientific thinking, something which has long permitted mankind to make mistakes, but however, largely facilitating keenness of evidence, contrary to the concept of belief!
See http://nonbeliefism.com
I'm confused, and surely wrong, about the cancer example.
1 in 10000 people are sick. 1 sick person : 9999 well persons multiply by 100: 100 sick people : 999900 well persons 99% of the sick people have positive tests: (0.99 * 100 = ) 99 Positive tests 1% of the well people have false positive tests: (0.01 * 999900 = 9999)
Using the odds view: number of sick persons with positive tests / total number of persons with positive tests: (99 / (99 + 9999) = 99 / 10098. Multiply top and bottom by (1/99) => (99/99) / (10098/99) = 1 / 102. The text says the answer is 1 / 101.010101... which is 99/10000.
So, try the waterfall method.
prior odds of being sick: 1 in 10000. Being sick: 1 Being well: 9999
chance of having positive test while sick: 99 chance of having positive test while well: 1
odds of being sick given positive test: (1 / 9999) * (99 / 1) = 99 / 9999 = 0.00990099 probability of being sick given positive test: 99 / (99+9999) = 1 / 102 from above.
Where did I go wrong? Thanks in advance for any time you have!
I'm very confused why you need two links to the same page (and one of them is blue).
In case a new user is confused by hovering a green link and seeing the popup suddenly poof in; in that case, the blue link gives them a simple way to "just click" something with no unexpected behavior.
What about calling this page the "tutorial" rather than "guide"? Tutorials are more likely to be interactive. And both the main and explore tabs feel more like what I would expect a "guide" to be than this page.
Guided walk-through or guided path would also work.
The user already knows they're on Arbital. Why not just call it "Guide" and "introductions"?
Too Eliezer-voice. What would Sal Khan say?
Yeah, that wasn't a great comment from me :P
Made a minor edit. If you want anything more, you'll need to be more specific.
It's not totally clear what the antecedent of this "it's" is. (Because "it's" often means "it is the case that")
Joe made a good point about the way this is phrased not sorting people quite right:
joe [11:50 AM]
“bad at math” = out of Arbital’s range
eric_bruylant [11:50 AM]
currently, yes the bad at math we're talking about is significantly a psychological aversion, not lack of background
joe [11:51 AM]
I’d say one of the things you might want to do
is to … oh
eric_bruylant [11:51 AM]
and we can't do therapy yet
joe [11:51 AM]
in that case, I think it’s somewhat poorly worded
because some people who are not psychologically averse might still consider themselves “bad at math”
just because they never really put any effort into it
like, they can’t multiply two-digit numbers, but they’d whip out a calculator if they had to
anyway: I’d say one of the things you might want to do is to have a list of problems that those people should be able to understand the full meaning of, although not necessarily solve
eric_bruylant [11:52 AM]
hm, yea. I kinda agree, though I'm not sure how to get all the people with an aversion
joe [11:53 AM]
I’d say more, “I don’t like math.”
eric_bruylant [11:53 AM]
since many of them won't realize the issue is an aversion rather than them being bad at math
that seems like an improvement to me
I'll put a mark on the page about it
joe [11:54 AM]
and I’d reword math 0 to “I don’t hate math, but I’m not particularly good at it.” (edited)
since Math 0 is supposed to represent “not very skilled”
eric_bruylant [11:54 AM]
seems good
joe [11:54 AM]
so they are “bad at math”, just not bad enough to have a phobia around it
Note: I'm not certain about the alternate wording, and meant to suggest changes to the math 0 or math 1 pages rather than directly here. I may also be missing something, so am letting Nate or EY check/rewrite rather than approving.