•

Created by Zack_M_Davis at 3y

The conjunction rule of probability theory states that a conjunction (A and B) is necessarily less probable than one of the conjuncts alone (A).~~ Any detail you add has to be pinned down by a sufficient amount of evidence; all the details you make no claim about can be summed over.~~ Adding more details to a theory may make it sound *more plausible* to human ears because of the representativeness heuristic, even as the story becomes normatively less probable, as **burdensome details** drive the probability of the conjunction down * exponentially*(this is known as conjunction fallacy). Any detail you add has to be pinned down by a sufficient amount of evidence; all the details you make no claim about can be summed over.

The conjunction rule of probability theory states that a conjunction (A and B) is necessarily less probable than one of the conjuncts alone (A). Any detail you ~~mention explicitly~~add has to be pinned down by a sufficient amount of ~~evidence,~~evidence; all the ~~possibilities and ~~details ~~not asserted~~you make no claim about can be summed over. Adding more details to a theory may make it sound *more plausible* to human ears because of the representativeness heuristic, even as the story becomes normatively less probable, as **burdensome details** drive the probability of the conjunction down *exponentially*.

The conjunction rule of probability theory states that a conjunction (A and B) is necessarily less probable than one of the conjuncts alone (A). Any detail you mention explicitly has to be pinned down by a sufficient amount of evidence, all the possibilities and details not asserted can be summed over. Adding more details to a theory may make it sound *more plausible* to human ears because of the representativeness heuristic~~ heuristic,~~, even as the story becomes normatively less probable, as **burdensome details** drive the probability of the conjunction down *exponentially*.

The conjunction rule of probability theory states that a conjunction (A and B) is necessarily less probable than one of the conjuncts alone (A). Any detail you mention explicitly has to be pinned down by a sufficient amount of evidence, all the possibilities and details not asserted can be summed over. Adding more details to a theory may make it sound *more plausible* to human ears because of the ~~availability~~representativeness heuristic, even as the story becomes normatively less probable, as **burdensome details** drive the probability of the conjunction down *exponentially*.

The conjunction rule of probability theory states that a conjunction (A and B) is necessarily less probable than one of the conjuncts alone (A). Any detail you mention explicitly has to be pinned down by a sufficient amount of evidence, all the possibilities and details not asserted can be summed over. Adding more details to a theory may make it sound *more plausible* to human ears because of the availability heuristic, even as the story becomes normatively less probable, as **burdensome details** drive the probability of the conjunction down *exponentially*.

- http://lesswrong.com/lw/jk/burdensome_details/ Burdensome details by Eliezer Yudkowsky

~~by~~~~Eliezer Yudkowsky~~