Grad House is the university's graduate student pub, serving food and drinks. You can see the location on plus.codes.
KWR will be purchasing an attendee-number-appropriate amount of (vegetarian) nachos to split, and you are encouraged to buy other food and drink if desired. They close at 10:00, hence the earlier-than-usual end time.
Activity
As we know from Aumann's agreement theorem, rational Bayesian actors with the same priors can always come to an agreement by sharing their evidence. In this week's meetup, we're going to try putting this into practice.
I've chosen the following few related propositions that I suspect our meetup attendees will not be in agreement about: 1) The quality of life of a median human being has gotten better since 2000 2) The quality of life of a median resident of North America, Europe or Australia has gotten better since 2000 3) The quality of life of a median Canadian has gotten better since 2000
Our goal for this meetup is to try and have our credences on these questions converge. To do this, we will try to work backwards towards our axioms to find where the disagreements lie and then share evidence with eachother to hopefully make some progress towards agreement.
Preparation
In preparation, please do the following:
a) For each headline proposition, think about what other propositions your credence depends on. For example, perhaps your credence of proposition 3) depends on your credence of the proposition "The average real household income in Canada has increased since 2000".
Repeat this process recursively until you either run out of time or get to some propositions that you expect most of us to agree with (for example: "People with higher income have a higher quality of life on average") It may be helpful to draw out the dependence network of these propositions.
b) For every proposition from part a), assign it a credence score from 0-100%. Approximate scores are fine. Bonus points if you use Bayes theorem to actually propagate your scores through the network.
If you are taking into account specific pieces of evidence (such as UN statistics), please take a note of those data so that you can share them if necessary.
Readings
There are no assigned readings this week, but feel free to look up information to inform your credence of various propositions in your network. Or feel free to not do that, and just assign credence based on what you already know.
(posting on behalf of kaleb)
This meetup is at a different location!
Grad House is the university's graduate student pub, serving food and drinks. You can see the location on plus.codes.
KWR will be purchasing an attendee-number-appropriate amount of (vegetarian) nachos to split, and you are encouraged to buy other food and drink if desired. They close at 10:00, hence the earlier-than-usual end time.
Activity
As we know from Aumann's agreement theorem, rational Bayesian actors with the same priors can always come to an agreement by sharing their evidence. In this week's meetup, we're going to try putting this into practice.
I've chosen the following few related propositions that I suspect our meetup attendees will not be in agreement about:
1) The quality of life of a median human being has gotten better since 2000
2) The quality of life of a median resident of North America, Europe or Australia has gotten better since 2000
3) The quality of life of a median Canadian has gotten better since 2000
Our goal for this meetup is to try and have our credences on these questions converge. To do this, we will try to work backwards towards our axioms to find where the disagreements lie and then share evidence with eachother to hopefully make some progress towards agreement.
Preparation
In preparation, please do the following:
a) For each headline proposition, think about what other propositions your credence depends on. For example, perhaps your credence of proposition 3) depends on your credence of the proposition "The average real household income in Canada has increased since 2000".
Repeat this process recursively until you either run out of time or get to some propositions that you expect most of us to agree with (for example: "People with higher income have a higher quality of life on average") It may be helpful to draw out the dependence network of these propositions.
b) For every proposition from part a), assign it a credence score from 0-100%. Approximate scores are fine. Bonus points if you use Bayes theorem to actually propagate your scores through the network.
If you are taking into account specific pieces of evidence (such as UN statistics), please take a note of those data so that you can share them if necessary.
Readings
There are no assigned readings this week, but feel free to look up information to inform your credence of various propositions in your network. Or feel free to not do that, and just assign credence based on what you already know.
Posted on: