Perhaps related to https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/inside-outside-view , as kind of the opposite of the planning fallacy. If you don’t look at averages, or if you deny that your context is more similar to the common case than the special case, you’ll be massively overconfident. If you ONLY look at averages and don’t consider how you can choose the environment or context (to some degree), you’ll miss out on opportunities to improve.
I think the only real answer is in the specifics of strategy A (best in the common case, with common levels of ability and effort) and strategy B (best for at least some cases), to determine which is best for your abilities and needs.
[ note: I mentally replaced the word “average” with “median” or “common” in your post. Averages for non-symmetrical distributions can be very misleading, and basically should never be used for this kind of comparison. ]
Perhaps related to https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/inside-outside-view , as kind of the opposite of the planning fallacy. If you don’t look at averages, or if you deny that your context is more similar to the common case than the special case, you’ll be massively overconfident. If you ONLY look at averages and don’t consider how you can choose the environment or context (to some degree), you’ll miss out on opportunities to improve.
I think the only real answer is in the specifics of strategy A (best in the common case, with common levels of ability and effort) and strategy B (best for at least some cases), to determine which is best for your abilities and needs.
[ note: I mentally replaced the word “average” with “median” or “common” in your post. Averages for non-symmetrical distributions can be very misleading, and basically should never be used for this kind of comparison. ]