I think you have that reversed. How can the statement “Bitcoin will surpass $5,000” be less probable than the statement “Bitcoin will surpass $5,000, due to X”?
The prediction that Bitcoin passes $5k, that there’s a bitcoin ETF, and that both happen, are all interesting probabilities; the claim that the conjunction will happen (and specifically that the bitcoin ETF will be the primary cause of the Bitcoin price increase) seems like a conjunction fallacy prompt, that the additional detail is there to make it seem more credible rather than less. (Otherwise, you should use a conditional- if a bitcoin ETF exists, then the price will likely top $5k.)
Yep, exactly. (More precisely, bramflakes was making a point about the conjunction fallacy and I was reinforcing it with a bit of irony. Trying to, anyway.)
I’m not sure the conjunction fallacy should be of operational importance to the giving of predictions, unless there is betting involved. What should I do instead, simply state “Bitcoin will rise to $5,000.”? That’s completely uninteresting, and I fail to see how anyone could judge that prediction based on anything other than my credentials and their prejudices. Saying “Bitcoin will rise to $5,000 due to X.” gives people a window into my thinking and lets them judge for themselves whether my assessment is likely.
There’s nothing at all wrong with making specific predictions. But it should be done with care, in view of our brains’ tendency to infer higher rather than lower probability when they see something more specific.
I think you have that reversed. How can the statement “Bitcoin will surpass $5,000” be less probable than the statement “Bitcoin will surpass $5,000, due to X”?
I strongly suspect it’s a joke about the conjunction fallacy.
The prediction that Bitcoin passes $5k, that there’s a bitcoin ETF, and that both happen, are all interesting probabilities; the claim that the conjunction will happen (and specifically that the bitcoin ETF will be the primary cause of the Bitcoin price increase) seems like a conjunction fallacy prompt, that the additional detail is there to make it seem more credible rather than less. (Otherwise, you should use a conditional- if a bitcoin ETF exists, then the price will likely top $5k.)
Yep, exactly. (More precisely, bramflakes was making a point about the conjunction fallacy and I was reinforcing it with a bit of irony. Trying to, anyway.)
I’m not sure the conjunction fallacy should be of operational importance to the giving of predictions, unless there is betting involved. What should I do instead, simply state “Bitcoin will rise to $5,000.”? That’s completely uninteresting, and I fail to see how anyone could judge that prediction based on anything other than my credentials and their prejudices. Saying “Bitcoin will rise to $5,000 due to X.” gives people a window into my thinking and lets them judge for themselves whether my assessment is likely.
You could say “Bitcoin will rise to $5,000 (for example, due to X).”
There’s nothing at all wrong with making specific predictions. But it should be done with care, in view of our brains’ tendency to infer higher rather than lower probability when they see something more specific.
Also, it’s nearly impossible to figure out what caused a price movement, even after the fact.
That’s true of index funds, not of individual assets, and demonstrably false in the case with a highly illiquid asset like bitcoin.