3 ms·

The "cow in the field" example reminds me of two heuristics I like: am I right for the wrong reason?; am I wrong for the right reason? Being right for the wron

The "cow in the field" example reminds me of two heuristics I like: am I right for the wrong reason?; am I wrong for the right reason? Being right for the wrong reason is dangerous: it's not easy to spot, and it perpetuates false sense of security leaving "black swan events" unanticipated. This might occur during debugging as the article points out, or e.g. during A/B testing of a product. Bring wrong for the right reason is just plain frustrating.

chii 8y ago
> Bring wrong for the right reason is just plain frustrating. what's an example of being wrong for the right reason? I can't think of any cases where this happens...
- reinhardt1053 8y ago
  In the context of political forecasting, imagine that you are a defence chief who is faced with an unquantifiable external threat, as the US was by Russia during the Cold War. You can predict that this enemy is a very great threat, or you can say that it isn’t much of a threat, but the outcomes are asymmetric. If you say that the threat is a grave one, and strengthen your defences accordingly, then if the enemy attacks, you were clearly right to take the threat seriously. If the enemy doesn’t attack, you were still right, because you can say that the enemy only didn’t attack because of the action you took. On the other hand, if you dismiss the threat as insignificant, and the enemy attacks, then at best your career comes to a sudden and unpleasant end. So therefore, it is always right to over-emphasise the threats, and if you turn out to be wrong, you were wrong for the right reason.[1] [1] https://wiseinvestment.co.uk/news/antiques-roadshow-tony-yarrow-november-2014 https://wiseinvestment.co.uk/news/antiques-roadshow-tony-yar...
  - chii 8y ago
    > always right to over-emphasise the threats, and if you turn out to be wrong, you were wrong for the right reason. if the audience is not receptive to the concept of opportunity cost, then yes. Unfortunately, a majority of people over-estimate the need for security and thus, allow themselves to be fooled into believing that this over-emphasis, no matter the cost, is justified. Just look at the TSA!
- lmm 8y ago
  Nate Silver is widely seen as having forecast the election "wrong" because he said Trump had a 20% chance of winning. AIUI his position is that his model was right and 20% was an accurate probability.
  - hopler 8y ago
    The essence of probability is being wrong for the right reasons (less often * weight then being right for those same reasons).
- zacherates 8y ago
  Games are a place this comes of frequently. In poker you will often make the "right" (highest EV) play and still lose a given hand. Making the highest odds plays (and being able to figure out what they are) over and over again regardless of how the individual hands turn out is how you win. Obviously, you can also win while making the wrong plays by getting lucky (right for the wrong reasons). Evaluating your play based on the outcome of the hands (did you win or lose) rather than the plays you made with the information you had at the time is called Results Oriented Thinking: https://www.pokerdictionary.net/glossary/results-oriented-thinking/ https://www.pokerdictionary.net/glossary/results-oriented-th... ... and it is a pernicious mistake (with wider applications than just poker :).
- andrewf 8y ago
  My compensation includes company stock. I sell that stock, and some of the proceeds end up in index funds. I do this because I want a diversified portfolio. My employer's stock is up 28% over the last year, S&P 500 is down 6%. I guess my goal going in was to reduce variance, so I wasn't "wrong" about anything. 36% more money would be nice, though. (I haven't changed my strategy as a result)

chii 8y ago

> Bring wrong for the right reason is just plain frustrating. what's an example of being wrong for the right reason? I can't think of any cases where this happens...

reinhardt1053 8y ago
In the context of political forecasting, imagine that you are a defence chief who is faced with an unquantifiable external threat, as the US was by Russia during the Cold War. You can predict that this enemy is a very great threat, or you can say that it isn’t much of a threat, but the outcomes are asymmetric. If you say that the threat is a grave one, and strengthen your defences accordingly, then if the enemy attacks, you were clearly right to take the threat seriously. If the enemy doesn’t attack, you were still right, because you can say that the enemy only didn’t attack because of the action you took. On the other hand, if you dismiss the threat as insignificant, and the enemy attacks, then at best your career comes to a sudden and unpleasant end. So therefore, it is always right to over-emphasise the threats, and if you turn out to be wrong, you were wrong for the right reason.[1] [1] https://wiseinvestment.co.uk/news/antiques-roadshow-tony-yarrow-november-2014 https://wiseinvestment.co.uk/news/antiques-roadshow-tony-yar...
- chii 8y ago
  > always right to over-emphasise the threats, and if you turn out to be wrong, you were wrong for the right reason. if the audience is not receptive to the concept of opportunity cost, then yes. Unfortunately, a majority of people over-estimate the need for security and thus, allow themselves to be fooled into believing that this over-emphasis, no matter the cost, is justified. Just look at the TSA!
lmm 8y ago
Nate Silver is widely seen as having forecast the election "wrong" because he said Trump had a 20% chance of winning. AIUI his position is that his model was right and 20% was an accurate probability.
- hopler 8y ago
  The essence of probability is being wrong for the right reasons (less often * weight then being right for those same reasons).
zacherates 8y ago
Games are a place this comes of frequently. In poker you will often make the "right" (highest EV) play and still lose a given hand. Making the highest odds plays (and being able to figure out what they are) over and over again regardless of how the individual hands turn out is how you win. Obviously, you can also win while making the wrong plays by getting lucky (right for the wrong reasons). Evaluating your play based on the outcome of the hands (did you win or lose) rather than the plays you made with the information you had at the time is called Results Oriented Thinking: https://www.pokerdictionary.net/glossary/results-oriented-thinking/ https://www.pokerdictionary.net/glossary/results-oriented-th... ... and it is a pernicious mistake (with wider applications than just poker :).
andrewf 8y ago
My compensation includes company stock. I sell that stock, and some of the proceeds end up in index funds. I do this because I want a diversified portfolio. My employer's stock is up 28% over the last year, S&P 500 is down 6%. I guess my goal going in was to reduce variance, so I wasn't "wrong" about anything. 36% more money would be nice, though. (I haven't changed my strategy as a result)