Misappropriation of probability reviewed under various complexities of thought

The Blind Men and the Elephant... or was it a Bear?

Random meandering thought on my walk out today sometime in [REDACTED]:

There exists a non zero probability people in the streets contain hostile intent, in the event and consideration where I rationally write it off as bogus I still respect the non zero probability and brace myself. In my case the resulting action appears as more rational than a weaker woman who may hide her biases less effectively out of genuine fear whereas in my case, confidence in dealing with the scenario presents a more “rational” attitude, despite maybe similar conclusions being reached. In this context the probability is non trivial and we work with an existing model, so can’t actually be dismissed as irrational, but rather a behavioural strategic preference for risk. The comparative severity of p() occurring between the woman and I, influences external attitudes but not internal reasoning.
In observing awareness of this situation in women, the responses range. Some understand that only the severity is altered and not the probability itself. But more commonly, severity is conflated with probability - believing the likelihood increases with severity.

The Religious Parallel

To what extent (it doesn’t really) this mirrors chain messages or religious parallels - that someone may understand the infinitesimally small chance of their religion being correct among infinite claims, but given its bigger experiential weight, and their desire to avoid such a “maximally detrimental” outcome their very internal rationale is taken hostage and crosses the “street”. An argument can be made whether they truly intuitively understand the concept of infinitesimally small as it doesn’t mirror natural analogies as much as p(human hostilities) are not infinitesimally small. Hence, this intuition born from natural expectations isn’t correct and shouldn’t be relied on. As in the case of infinitesimally small probabilities, (excluding prob densities as infinite categorical claims do not work with ranges) by any mathematical definition of the number, there does not exist any non-zero probability. Or rather there is no literal difference between 0 and this 0.000… recurring.

The actual thought experiment for Pascals mugging and Wager seem more like intuition pumps that abuse the conflat...

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments