That could be explained in passing by adding something like:
Yeah, but it still does go off in a different direction from the larger point of explaining what expected value is and why it is common sensical. I could see adding it though. It felt like a close call to me as I was writing this. I also considered touching on how this expected value stuff is supported by the academics.
Whether or not it’s actually “really, really harmful”
I see what you’re saying about how people do reasonably well in everyday life by using their heuristics. But my opinion is that “reasonably well” is a stretch, and the lack of expected value based thinking is in fact pretty harmful. Unfortunately, my thoughts on this are pretty jumbled and I’m not at the point of being able to explain why I believe this very well. Maybe I’ll figure it out and write up my thoughts in a future post.
(I also stopped reading around ‘Would you buy the lottery ticket?’)
Would you mind letting me know why? I promise I won’t take offense or anything, it’d just be useful feedback for me to improve as a writer.
Would you mind letting me know why? I promise I won’t take offense or anything, it’d just be useful feedback for me to improve as a writer.
I was a little busy at the time, but mostly because I’m familiar with (the concept of) expected value—so since I wasn’t learning something new, so I decided to move on. (If it was a more complicated concept I might not have, because I could use the refresher more, but EV(x) = p(benefit)*Benefit-p(cost)*Cost is a formula I’m not going to forget anytime soon.
But my opinion is that “reasonably well” is a stretch
Probably. I wonder if that’s a result of a tendency towards inaction, in general.
While I’m familiar with the idea, I haven’t used it a lot—mostly because the objects involved aren’t natively numbers. (Like, I didn’t buy lottery tickets before I knew. The general argument in favor of using expected value more (in a straightforward way) might be “You could buy more stuff, and treat that as buying a lottery ticket, with better odds.”)
I came back later and finished it.*
Bob: True. But what about Black Friday where all of those sites shut down?
That’s the kind of factor where I’d expect paper to be involved to actually make sure the total amount at stake isn’t too high. (I don’t do correlated probability (EV) calculations in my head, atm.)
*I just figured out a great argument for creating two accounts on this:
By making a comment, and then creating a response to that comment on a different account, it would be easy to set up a reminder to re-read, or finish reading, something. The only problem is the induced clutter, which is a general problem with trying to re-use comment features. (If used to comment on a non-public draft, then maybe that would only affect the shared parties, and function as a work around/fix.)
The really useful version of the feature (reading list reminders) would be adding a timing aspect to it, or being able to set up dependencies (i.e. read this then this). Just having it in one place could work, but the way UI is currently set up doesn’t use pages (like you can see 10 bookmarked posts (and only posts, and not comments or shortforms), but there isn’t the option to go through pages). I wonder if the GW viewer handles those differently or at all.
I was a little busy at the time, but mostly because I’m familiar with (the concept of) expected value—so since I wasn’t learning something new, so I decided to move on.
Gotcha, thank you.
I wonder if that’s a result of a tendency towards inaction, in general.
Hm, I don’t get that impression but I’m not sure. I’m gonna keep an eye out for this.
Yeah, but it still does go off in a different direction from the larger point of explaining what expected value is and why it is common sensical. I could see adding it though. It felt like a close call to me as I was writing this. I also considered touching on how this expected value stuff is supported by the academics.
I see what you’re saying about how people do reasonably well in everyday life by using their heuristics. But my opinion is that “reasonably well” is a stretch, and the lack of expected value based thinking is in fact pretty harmful. Unfortunately, my thoughts on this are pretty jumbled and I’m not at the point of being able to explain why I believe this very well. Maybe I’ll figure it out and write up my thoughts in a future post.
Would you mind letting me know why? I promise I won’t take offense or anything, it’d just be useful feedback for me to improve as a writer.
I was a little busy at the time, but mostly because I’m familiar with (the concept of) expected value—so since I wasn’t learning something new, so I decided to move on. (If it was a more complicated concept I might not have, because I could use the refresher more, but EV(x) = p(benefit)*Benefit-p(cost)*Cost is a formula I’m not going to forget anytime soon.
Probably. I wonder if that’s a result of a tendency towards inaction, in general.
While I’m familiar with the idea, I haven’t used it a lot—mostly because the objects involved aren’t natively numbers. (Like, I didn’t buy lottery tickets before I knew. The general argument in favor of using expected value more (in a straightforward way) might be “You could buy more stuff, and treat that as buying a lottery ticket, with better odds.”)
I came back later and finished it.*
That’s the kind of factor where I’d expect paper to be involved to actually make sure the total amount at stake isn’t too high. (I don’t do correlated probability (EV) calculations in my head, atm.)
*I just figured out a great argument for creating two accounts on this:
By making a comment, and then creating a response to that comment on a different account, it would be easy to set up a reminder to re-read, or finish reading, something. The only problem is the induced clutter, which is a general problem with trying to re-use comment features. (If used to comment on a non-public draft, then maybe that would only affect the shared parties, and function as a work around/fix.)
The really useful version of the feature (reading list reminders) would be adding a timing aspect to it, or being able to set up dependencies (i.e. read this then this). Just having it in one place could work, but the way UI is currently set up doesn’t use pages (like you can see 10 bookmarked posts (and only posts, and not comments or shortforms), but there isn’t the option to go through pages). I wonder if the GW viewer handles those differently or at all.
Gotcha, thank you.
Hm, I don’t get that impression but I’m not sure. I’m gonna keep an eye out for this.