6 ms·

How to Be Wrong (2016)

115 points by JonahBraun 8y ago

stephengillie 8y ago
Be right, from a different point of view.
kranner 8y ago
vos Savant's article on this that lists highlights from the letters: http://marilynvossavant.com/game-show-problem/ http://marilynvossavant.com/game-show-problem/
- Zrdr 8y ago
  The Monty Hall problem, as it is initially stated by vos Savant (and even in this link) is not well written. It make implicit assumptions about the host behavior. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Other_host_behaviors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Other_host_... If this had been clear from the beginning, there would not have been so much confusion about this problem. So in this case, vos Savant is also quite "wrong".
  - WilliamEdward 8y ago
    It really irks me that the original reader asked the question, stated that the host knew what was behind the doors, but didn't state any rules to the gameshow whatsoever. Savant basically made up the entirety of the question herself. This whole section of history should just be erased because of how much controversy it caused without any serious progression.
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    Vos Savant claimed that, of the people who explained their demurral, most were, in fact, basing their objections on the intended reading of the question.
theaeolist 8y ago
As a CS university lecturer, I acknowledge that there is little room for exploration, and the chance of being wrong, in most assessment schemes. Any mistake loses points and lowers the GPA, so nobody likes to make mistakes, however creative and interesting. Shame. The system cannot be easily revised because the students themselves oppose it. To them it seems intuitively unfair that somehow those who make mistakes may get the same points as those who get it right.
- WilliamEdward 8y ago
  You didn't read their first point - if you're going to be wrong, do so in private. You should be making as many mistakes as possible at home or after hours so that by class or test time you never make them again. Mistakes are a way of learning but not a way of doing. After all, the entirety of life was built with 1 tool - the mistake.
  - jjjensen90 8y ago
    Wait a minute, mistakes are a "way of learning" but you should avoid them in school?
    - WilliamEdward 8y ago
      You should avoid them when trying to produce actual good work and results, obviously. Before that point, make as many as you want so you can learn how to produce flawless results.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- DominikPeters 8y ago
  At my university (UK) only final exams count, and everything before then (such as problem sets) are marked/graded only for feedback, which is a nice middle ground. Requires students motivated enough to submit work that won't count.
yesenadam 8y ago
Wow, I liked it (although none of the Monty Hall story was new to me) until the part where he was disgustingly dismissive and insulting to Semmelweis. Then I stopped reading. A less sympathetic account can hardly be imagined, I thought it was shameful.
- ajkjk 8y ago
  Weird that you would stop reading for that, and announce it here. As if there's some virtue in turning away in disgust.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    Don't be snarky I'm offering a severe criticism of the writer, and sticking up for Semmelweis. I'm not sure what you're doing, besides tempting me to use the phrase 'virtue signalling' for the first time ever.
    - watwut 8y ago
      And article merely offered criticism of Semmelweis approach. Why is that disgusting? Is that untruth or he did not ended in that asylum? Should these topics be taboo? There is really lesson there, you can alienate people enough so they end up not listening to reasonable parts of what you are pushing for.
      - castlecrasher2 8y ago
        >"Semmelweis [...] may have been responsible for the deaths of millions" How does that not strike you as unnecessarily harsh and unwarranted? The statement reeks of viewing history through the modern lens, and the author doubles down on the next sentence suggesting that the scientific community would have somehow opened their eyes if only Semmelweis had either not been born or had been less of an asshole, or something.
        watwut 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jonathanstrange 8y ago
Oh man, I'm always glad to hear I'm not the only one who got the Monty Hall problem wrong. Here is my embarrassing MH story. Like Paul Erdős, I resorted to experimentation. Very much unlike Paul Erdős the computer program I wrote contained a one-off error in its PRNG that coincidentally confirmed the wrong result. I then spent a day or so on Usenet insisting stubbornly on the wrong solution until some very kind person on sci.crypt made a complete truth table as a proof. That exhaustive proof immediately convinced me of my idiocy. Lesson: If a bunch of smart and educated people tell you that you're wrong, then you're probably wrong.
- delinka 8y ago
  “If a bunch of smart and educated people...” Well, you do have to first recognize that the particular bunch is composed of smart and educated people...
- WilliamEdward 8y ago
  The thing is that the person who got it right was not a researcher while all those that got it wrong were. Either way, you should never feel bad about getting the monty hall problem wrong because it was never set up as a fair question. Marilyn Savant made some incredible assumptions about the premise of the question that were never clear and thus almost completely made up the question herself.
- dhimes 8y ago
  I embarrassed myself on usenet. Still remember it. Still can...feel it. It was that problem that made me realize that although physicists deal with probabilities all the time, we don't really understand them.
- umvi 8y ago
  > Lesson: If a bunch of smart and educated people tell you that you're wrong, then you're probably wrong. Not always the case. As they say, science advances one funeral (of smart and educated people) at a time...
  - EForEndeavour 8y ago
coldtea 8y ago
>Sometimes something even simpler than the “I used to think so too but now I know better” criterion can be used to unmask bunk; if there’s a good story and one that’s disappointingly banal, usually the latter is the one that’s unfortunately true. A problem with this is that there are now increasingly more people who automatically opt for the "disappointingly banal" story even in cases when the good story is the actually true one (and insist on it) -- because it enables them to take pride in "debunking" and feel superior to others. In other words, where once most people went for the "good story" for psychological reasons (because it's more satisfying, makes for interesting talk, etc), now, with the raise of sites like Snopes, "fact-checking" forums, sceptic sites, and so on, there's an increasing equally bogus motive for preferring the banal story. (And this is orthogonal to Occam's razor. For one, because the banal and the interesting story might be of equal simplicity and with equally few prerequisites. Beside's Occam's razor is just an observation, not an absolute law: sometimes the more elaborate course is indeed what happened).
- Y_Y 8y ago
  > even in cases when the good story is the actually true one I enjoy being a jerk and ruining a story as much as the next person, but you have to check your facts before doing something like that. Are there any good examples you've come across of someone miscorrecting a "good" story to a banal one?
bookofjoe 8y ago
"Being Wrong — Adventures in the Margin of Error"; wonderful 2010 book reviewed here by Dan Gilbert: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/books/review/Gilbert-t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/books/review/Gilbert-t.ht...
Isamu 8y ago
Such a great read. >I tell my students that, in the first place, they need to get over the fear of making mistakes. >So my answer to the question “How to be wrong?” is: “Early and often!” >And if you can’t be genuinely modest, fake it. Develop a habit of always acting in such a way that if you prove to be wrong, it won’t make you look really really bad. >certain truths may be denied to us unless we pass through a preparatory stage of error. >For now, I’ll skip ahead to the moral: Sometimes, when you find the right hole, you shouldn’t just put one foot into it. You should jump in with both feet the way Alice did, and see what kind of wonderland it leads to.

115 points by JonahBraun 8y ago

Be right, from a different point of view.

vos Savant's article on this that lists highlights from the letters: http://marilynvossavant.com/game-show-problem/ http://marilynvossavant.com/game-show-problem/

Zrdr 8y ago
The Monty Hall problem, as it is initially stated by vos Savant (and even in this link) is not well written. It make implicit assumptions about the host behavior. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Other_host_behaviors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Other_host_... If this had been clear from the beginning, there would not have been so much confusion about this problem. So in this case, vos Savant is also quite "wrong".
- WilliamEdward 8y ago
  It really irks me that the original reader asked the question, stated that the host knew what was behind the doors, but didn't state any rules to the gameshow whatsoever. Savant basically made up the entirety of the question herself. This whole section of history should just be erased because of how much controversy it caused without any serious progression.
- mannykannot 8y ago
  Vos Savant claimed that, of the people who explained their demurral, most were, in fact, basing their objections on the intended reading of the question.

theaeolist 8y ago

As a CS university lecturer, I acknowledge that there is little room for exploration, and the chance of being wrong, in most assessment schemes. Any mistake loses points and lowers the GPA, so nobody likes to make mistakes, however creative and interesting. Shame. The system cannot be easily revised because the students themselves oppose it. To them it seems intuitively unfair that somehow those who make mistakes may get the same points as those who get it right.

WilliamEdward 8y ago
You didn't read their first point - if you're going to be wrong, do so in private. You should be making as many mistakes as possible at home or after hours so that by class or test time you never make them again. Mistakes are a way of learning but not a way of doing. After all, the entirety of life was built with 1 tool - the mistake.
- jjjensen90 8y ago
  Wait a minute, mistakes are a "way of learning" but you should avoid them in school?
  - WilliamEdward 8y ago
    You should avoid them when trying to produce actual good work and results, obviously. Before that point, make as many as you want so you can learn how to produce flawless results.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
DominikPeters 8y ago
At my university (UK) only final exams count, and everything before then (such as problem sets) are marked/graded only for feedback, which is a nice middle ground. Requires students motivated enough to submit work that won't count.

yesenadam 8y ago

Wow, I liked it (although none of the Monty Hall story was new to me) until the part where he was disgustingly dismissive and insulting to Semmelweis. Then I stopped reading. A less sympathetic account can hardly be imagined, I thought it was shameful.

ajkjk 8y ago
Weird that you would stop reading for that, and announce it here. As if there's some virtue in turning away in disgust.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  Don't be snarky I'm offering a severe criticism of the writer, and sticking up for Semmelweis. I'm not sure what you're doing, besides tempting me to use the phrase 'virtue signalling' for the first time ever.
  - watwut 8y ago
    And article merely offered criticism of Semmelweis approach. Why is that disgusting? Is that untruth or he did not ended in that asylum? Should these topics be taboo? There is really lesson there, you can alienate people enough so they end up not listening to reasonable parts of what you are pushing for.
    - castlecrasher2 8y ago
      >"Semmelweis [...] may have been responsible for the deaths of millions" How does that not strike you as unnecessarily harsh and unwarranted? The statement reeks of viewing history through the modern lens, and the author doubles down on the next sentence suggesting that the scientific community would have somehow opened their eyes if only Semmelweis had either not been born or had been less of an asshole, or something.
      - watwut 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jonathanstrange 8y ago

Oh man, I'm always glad to hear I'm not the only one who got the Monty Hall problem wrong. Here is my embarrassing MH story. Like Paul Erdős, I resorted to experimentation. Very much unlike Paul Erdős the computer program I wrote contained a one-off error in its PRNG that coincidentally confirmed the wrong result. I then spent a day or so on Usenet insisting stubbornly on the wrong solution until some very kind person on sci.crypt made a complete truth table as a proof. That exhaustive proof immediately convinced me of my idiocy. Lesson: If a bunch of smart and educated people tell you that you're wrong, then you're probably wrong.

delinka 8y ago
“If a bunch of smart and educated people...” Well, you do have to first recognize that the particular bunch is composed of smart and educated people...
WilliamEdward 8y ago
The thing is that the person who got it right was not a researcher while all those that got it wrong were. Either way, you should never feel bad about getting the monty hall problem wrong because it was never set up as a fair question. Marilyn Savant made some incredible assumptions about the premise of the question that were never clear and thus almost completely made up the question herself.
dhimes 8y ago
I embarrassed myself on usenet. Still remember it. Still can...feel it. It was that problem that made me realize that although physicists deal with probabilities all the time, we don't really understand them.
umvi 8y ago
> Lesson: If a bunch of smart and educated people tell you that you're wrong, then you're probably wrong. Not always the case. As they say, science advances one funeral (of smart and educated people) at a time...
- EForEndeavour 8y ago

coldtea 8y ago

>Sometimes something even simpler than the “I used to think so too but now I know better” criterion can be used to unmask bunk; if there’s a good story and one that’s disappointingly banal, usually the latter is the one that’s unfortunately true. A problem with this is that there are now increasingly more people who automatically opt for the "disappointingly banal" story even in cases when the good story is the actually true one (and insist on it) -- because it enables them to take pride in "debunking" and feel superior to others. In other words, where once most people went for the "good story" for psychological reasons (because it's more satisfying, makes for interesting talk, etc), now, with the raise of sites like Snopes, "fact-checking" forums, sceptic sites, and so on, there's an increasing equally bogus motive for preferring the banal story. (And this is orthogonal to Occam's razor. For one, because the banal and the interesting story might be of equal simplicity and with equally few prerequisites. Beside's Occam's razor is just an observation, not an absolute law: sometimes the more elaborate course is indeed what happened).

Y_Y 8y ago
> even in cases when the good story is the actually true one I enjoy being a jerk and ruining a story as much as the next person, but you have to check your facts before doing something like that. Are there any good examples you've come across of someone miscorrecting a "good" story to a banal one?

bookofjoe 8y ago

"Being Wrong — Adventures in the Margin of Error"; wonderful 2010 book reviewed here by Dan Gilbert: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/books/review/Gilbert-t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/books/review/Gilbert-t.ht...

Isamu 8y ago

Such a great read. >I tell my students that, in the first place, they need to get over the fear of making mistakes. >So my answer to the question “How to be wrong?” is: “Early and often!” >And if you can’t be genuinely modest, fake it. Develop a habit of always acting in such a way that if you prove to be wrong, it won’t make you look really really bad. >certain truths may be denied to us unless we pass through a preparatory stage of error. >For now, I’ll skip ahead to the moral: Sometimes, when you find the right hole, you shouldn’t just put one foot into it. You should jump in with both feet the way Alice did, and see what kind of wonderland it leads to.