Fantastic article. The problem is that now I have a pet theory with which to dismiss anything said by a TV pundit with whom I disagree: I’d be better off guessing myself or at random than listening to them.
Maybe I can estimate how many variables various conclusions rest on, and how much uncertainty is in each, in order to estimate the total uncertainty in various possible outcomes. I’ll have to pay special attention to any evidence that undercuts my beliefs and assumptions, to try to avoid confirmation bias.
Fantastic article. The problem is that now I have a pet theory with which to dismiss anything said by a TV pundit with whom I disagree: I’d be better off guessing myself or at random than listening to them.
That’s great, stop watching TV. TV pundits are an awful source of information.
The problem is that now I have a pet theory with which to dismiss anything said by a TV pundit with whom I disagree: I’d be better off guessing myself or at random than listening to them.
TV pundits are entertainers. They’re hired less for their insightful commentary and more for their ability to engage an audience.
Fantastic article. The problem is that now I have a pet theory with which to dismiss anything said by a TV pundit with whom I disagree: I’d be better off guessing myself or at random than listening to them.
Maybe I can estimate how many variables various conclusions rest on, and how much uncertainty is in each, in order to estimate the total uncertainty in various possible outcomes. I’ll have to pay special attention to any evidence that undercuts my beliefs and assumptions, to try to avoid confirmation bias.
That’s great, stop watching TV. TV pundits are an awful source of information.
One of my past life decisions I consistently feel very happy about.
TV pundits are entertainers. They’re hired less for their insightful commentary and more for their ability to engage an audience.