Seems like a general issue with Bayesian probabilities? Like, I’m making a argument at >1000:1 odds ratio, it’s not meant to be 100%.
No? With normal probabilities, I can make bets and check my calibration. That’s not possible here.
Then the problem is that you can’t make bets and check your calibration, not that some people will arrive at the wrong conclusion, which is inevitable with probabilistic reasoning.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
Seems like a general issue with Bayesian probabilities? Like, I’m making a argument at >1000:1 odds ratio, it’s not meant to be 100%.
No? With normal probabilities, I can make bets and check my calibration. That’s not possible here.
Then the problem is that you can’t make bets and check your calibration, not that some people will arrive at the wrong conclusion, which is inevitable with probabilistic reasoning.