2 ms·
The rule of three requires quite a lot of assumptions about the nature of the phenomena. Or as Taleb says it: > Consider a turkey that is fed every day. Every
by oldgradstudent 8y ago
The rule of three requires quite a lot of assumptions about the nature of the phenomena.
Or as Taleb says it:
> Consider a turkey that is fed every day. Every single feeding will firm up the bird's belief that it is the general rule of life to be fed every day by friendly members of the human race "looking out for its best interests," as a politician would say.
> On the afternoon of the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, something unexpected will happen to the turkey. It will incur a revision of belief.
- PeterisP 8y agoIt certainly does not require unwarranted assumptions, the proposed approach is consistent with the well-known turkey scenario. From the experience of feeding a turkey can infer that being slaughtered is a rare event, and that the likelihood it happening exactly tomorrow (without having access to a calendar) is not necessarily 0, but is below a certain rate - and it's definitely not likely to happen three times in the next week. Surviving for 180 days is reasonable justification to assume that, on average, turkeys get slaughtered less frequently than every 60 days, i.e. that the likelihood of Thanksgiving suddenly arriving tomorrow isn't 50% but rather something below 2%.
- AstralStorm 8y agoCompletely wrong. Continued survival of given that gives no information at all of survival rates and its distribution. This is because variability of data input is extremely low so mutual information between each of the days is vanishingly small. This is why a good experimental design will observe a measurement with some expected variability. An even better trick is the sleeping beauty problem. To solve it you need external information.