3 ms·

> As mentioned, there is a difference between bias and uniform bias. You are simply mistaken in your interpretation of the technical term "unbiased estimator".

by _dps 9y ago

> As mentioned, there is a difference between bias and uniform bias. You are simply mistaken in your interpretation of the technical term "unbiased estimator". This has a specific meaning in statistics, and is required for the convergence property you specified earlier. From wikipedia [0] "In statistics, the bias (or bias function) of an estimator is the difference between this estimator's expected value and the true value of the parameter being estimated." In lay terms, this means that the estimator process "ask lots of people and average the result" is unbiased only if all the too-high errors, in aggregate, cancel out the too-low errors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_of_an_estimator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_of_an_estimator

indubitable 9y ago
I'm not sure if we're now going in circles or if you failed to read what I just wrote. Repeating it: "The implication of your comment is that the wisdom of the masses is little more than incorrect answers canceling out on average leaving nothing but a survey of experts. Yet I think there's no evidence for this (even if it may be a perfectly logical 'kneejerk' reaction) as it works even on things where nobody is an expert, and if this were the case then we ostensibly should be able to get comparable answers from coordination - yet coordination causes the entire system to collapse. ... " I'm not sure if you even realize all the assumptions you're making. You are assuming, for instance, that 'guesses' are regularly distributed. That assumption may be correct in some cases - I expect in many it is not. Alternatively there is the possibility is for you to claim that you're referring not to the individuals in question as the estimators, but the entire group. In that case you've spent a lot of time saying nothing as it boils down to "people are only correct if they're correct."
- IshKebab 9y ago
  Sorry but you're mathematically wrong. The "wisdom of the crowds" does not work on things were everybody is wrong in the same way. For example if you ask a lot of people to estimate income inequality you get the wrong answer because everybody underestimates it. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequali... The "wisdom of the crowds" is pseudo-nonsense.

by _dps 9y ago

indubitable 9y ago

I'm not sure if we're now going in circles or if you failed to read what I just wrote. Repeating it: "The implication of your comment is that the wisdom of the masses is little more than incorrect answers canceling out on average leaving nothing but a survey of experts. Yet I think there's no evidence for this (even if it may be a perfectly logical 'kneejerk' reaction) as it works even on things where nobody is an expert, and if this were the case then we ostensibly should be able to get comparable answers from coordination - yet coordination causes the entire system to collapse. ... " I'm not sure if you even realize all the assumptions you're making. You are assuming, for instance, that 'guesses' are regularly distributed. That assumption may be correct in some cases - I expect in many it is not. Alternatively there is the possibility is for you to claim that you're referring not to the individuals in question as the estimators, but the entire group. In that case you've spent a lot of time saying nothing as it boils down to "people are only correct if they're correct."

IshKebab 9y ago
Sorry but you're mathematically wrong. The "wisdom of the crowds" does not work on things were everybody is wrong in the same way. For example if you ask a lot of people to estimate income inequality you get the wrong answer because everybody underestimates it. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequali... The "wisdom of the crowds" is pseudo-nonsense.