And yet again I am reminded why I do not frequent this supposedly rational forum more. Rationality swishes by over most peoples head here, except for a few really smart ones. You people make it too complicated. You write too much. Lots of these supposedly deep intellectual problems have quite simple answers, such as this Ellsberg paradox. You just have to look and think a little outside their boxes to solve them, or see that they are unsolvable, or that they are wrong questions.
I will yet again go away, to solve more useful and interesting problems on my own.
Oh, and Orthonormal, here is my correct final answer to you: You do not understand me, and this is your fault.
Bayesian reasoning is for maximizing the probability of being right. Kelly´s criterion is for maximizing aggregated value.
And yet again, the distributions of the probabilities are different, because they have different variance, and difference in variance give different aggregated value, which is what people tend to try to optimize.
Aggregating value in this case is to get more pies, and fewer boots to the head. Pies are of no value to you when you are dead from boots to the head, and this is the root cause for preferring lower variance.
This isn´t much of a discussion when you just ignore and deny my argument instead of trying to understand it.
No, because expected value is not the same thing as variance.
Betting on red gives 1/3 winnings, exactly.
Betting on green gives 1/3 +/- x winnings, and this is a variance, which is bad.
Preferring red is rational, because it is a known amount of risk, while each of the other two colours have unknown risks.
This is according to Kellys criterion and Darwinian evolution. Negative outcomes outweigh positive ones because negative ones lead to sickness and death through starvation, poorness, and kicks in the head.
This is only valid in the beginning, because when the experiment is repeated, the probabilities of blue and green become clearer.
There often is not any difference at all between flirting and friendliness. People vary very much in their ways. And yet we are supposed to easily tell the difference, with threat of imprisonment for failing.
The main effects I have seen and experienced, is that flirting typically involve more eye contact, and that a lot of people flirt while denying they do it, and refusing to to tell what they would do if they really flirted, and disparaging others for not knowing the difference.
My experience is also that ordinary people are much more direct and clear in the difference between flirting and friendship, while academic people muddle it.
Most places I have worked, the reputation of the job has been quite different from the actual job. I have compared my experiences with those of friends and colleagues, and they are relatively similar. Having a M.Sc. in physics and lots of programming experience made it possible for me to have more different kinds of engineering jobs, and thus more varied experience.
My conclusion is that the anthropic principle holds for me in the work place, so that each time I experience Dilbertesque situations, they are representative of typical work situations. So yes, I do think my work situation is typical.
My current job doing statistical analysis for stock analysts pay $ 73 000, while the average pay elsewhere is $ 120 000.
I am, and I am planning to leave it to get a higher more average pay. From my viewpoint, it is terribly overrated and undervalued.
That was a damn good article!
It was short, to the point, and based on real data, and useful as well. So unlike the polite verbiage of karma whores. Even William of Ockham would have been proud of you.
Kim0+
I wondered how humans are grouped, so I got some genes from the world, and did an eigenvalue analysis, and this is what i found:
http://kim.oyhus.no/EigenGenes.html
As you can see, humans are indeed clustered in subspecies.
Comments