(This post is not an attempt to convey anything new, but is instead an attempt to convey the concept of Bayesian reasoning as simply as possible. There have been other elementary posts that have covered how to use Bayes’ theorem: here, here, here and here) Bayes’ theorem is about the...
(This post is not an attempt to convey anything new, but is instead just an attempt to provide background context on how Bayes' theorem works by describing how it can be deduced. This is not meant to be a formal proof. There have been other elementary posts that have covered...
If people don't see you as being “reasonable”, then you are likely to have troublesome interactions with them. Therefore, it is often valuable to be seen as “reasonable”. Reasonableness is a general perception that is determined by the social context and norms. It includes, but is not limited to, being...
Yes you can. See this site for what I think is a good example of visualizing Bayes' theorem with venn diagrams.
(This post is not an attempt to convey anything new, but is instead an attempt to convey the concept of Bayesian reasoning as simply as possible. There have been other elementary posts that have covered how to use Bayes’ theorem: here, here, here and here)
Bayes’ theorem is about the probability that something is true given some piece or pieces of evidence. In a really simple form it is basically the equation below:
This will be explained using the following coin flipping scenario:
If someone is flipping two coins: one fair and one biased (has heads on both sides), then what is the probability that the coin flipped was the fair coin given that you
(This post is not an attempt to convey anything new, but is instead just an attempt to provide background context on how Bayes' theorem works by describing how it can be deduced. This is not meant to be a formal proof. There have been other elementary posts that have covered how to use Bayes’ theorem: here, here, here and here)
Consider the following example
... (read 1723 more words →)Imagine that your friend has a bowl that contains cookies in two varieties: chocolate chip and white chip macadamia nut. You think to yourself: “Yum. I would really like a chocolate chip cookie”. So you reach for one, but before you can pull one out your friend lets you know that you can only pick one,
Good point. Would you say that this is the problem: when you are rational, you deem your conclusions more valuable than those of non-rational people. This can end up being a problem as you are less likely to update your beliefs when they are opposed. This adds the risk that if you make a one false belief and then rationally deduce a plethora of others from it you will be less likely to update any erronous conclusions.
I think that the predicament highlights the fact that going against what is reasonable is not something that you should do lightly. Maybe, I should make this more explicit.
If you are going against the crowd,... (read more)
I agree that this is probably not the best example. The scrub one is better.
I think that "moral" is similar to "reasonable" in that it is based on intutition rather than argument and rationality. People have seen slavery as being "moral" in the past. Some of the reasons for this is false beliefs like that it's natural that some people are slaves, that slaves are inferior beings and that slavery is good for slaves,
I guess I was thinking about it from two points of view:
I agree that rationality and reasonableness can be similar, but they can also be different. See this post for what I mean by rationality. The idea of it being choosing the best option is too vague.
Some factors that may lead to what others think is reasonable being different from what is the most rational are: the continued use of old paradigms that are known to be faulty, pushing your views as being what is reasonable as a method of control and status quo bias.
Here is are two more examples of the predicament
I don't think I was very clear. I meant for this case to be covered under "avoid the issue". As by avoiding the issue you just continue whatever course of action or behaviour you were previously undertaking. I have edited the post to make this a bit clearer.
I thought about this later and think you were right. I have updated the process in the picture.
Yes. They seem pretty close to me. I think it is a bit different though. I think the bruce article was trying to convey the idea that Bruce was a kind of gaming masochist. That is, he wanted to lose.
An example quote is:
If he would hit a lucky streak and pile up some winnings he would continue to play until the odds kicked in as he knew they always would thus he was able to jump into the pit of despair and self-loathing head first. Because he needed to. And Bruce is just like that.
The difference as I see it is that bruce loses through self sabotage because of unresolved issues in his psyche and the scrub loses through self sabotage because they are too pedantic.
Good idea. I replaced it with "Why can't you just conform to my belief of what is the best course of action for you here". Thanks.
Done. Thanks for the suggestion.
A wrote a post based on this, see The Just-Be-Reasonable Predicament. The just-be-reasonable predicament occurs when in order to be seen as being reasonable you must do something irrational or non-optimal.
If people don't see you as being “reasonable”, then you are likely to have troublesome interactions with them. Therefore, it is often valuable to be seen as “reasonable”. Reasonableness is a general perception that is determined by the social context and norms. It includes, but is not limited to, being seen as fair, sensible and socially cooperative. In summary, we can describe it as being noticeably rational in socially acceptable ways. What is “reasonable” and what is rational often converges, but it is important to note that they can also diverge and be different. For example, it was deemed “unreasonable” to free African-Americans from slavery because slavery was deemed necessary for the economy... (read 1256 more words →)
Ok. Thanks for letting me know. I have removed the first example. I was thinking that it would make it simpler if I started out with an example that didn't look at evidence, but I think it is better without it.
If anyone wants to know the difference between frequency and probability. See the below quote:
... (read more)