4 ms·

"For the advice coming out of this model to beat a very practical alternative — following conventional wisdom or your own common-sense — we’ll need to deal with

"For the advice coming out of this model to beat a very practical alternative — following conventional wisdom or your own common-sense — we’ll need to deal with many of them all at once." Conventional wisdom and common sense really means "using an ill defined heuristic", which isn't so obviously better than the discussed algorithm. Common sense, as the saying goes, is neither common nor sense, and using this phrase just hides the actual algorithms people really apply. There is no reason to think that common sense encompasses more reliable judgement than the simple maths here.

ineedasername 8y ago
Well, in the case of something like dating, I'm not so sure. If in your first serious relationship you find yourself saying, "I really love this person. They're fantastic. I don't want to give them up." Conventional wisdom would probably say, "Well, don't give them up then."
jakobegger 8y ago
Our "common sense" has been shaped by the experiences of thousands of generations before us, and it has worked out so far. I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly.
- dabbledash 8y ago
  Things started “working out” pretty recently, once we started applying more rigor to our thinking. Life in the thousands of generations before was pretty rough by comparison, to put it very mildly.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    That's a naive oversimplification -- the kind of modern thinking that considers history some kind of shit-hole and ours the first enlightened era. People had extremely rich lives, deep thoughts, and interesting problems to solve, throughout the 3-4K years of history. So Joe Sixpack today, or even a Joe IvyLeagueDegree today is no more sophisticated than e.g. a citizen of ancient Athens or Rome or Bagdad in most everyday matters.
    - dabbledash 8y ago
      Pre-industrial society was a shithole for most people compared to the present. And I’m not basing that on metrics like literacy or access to political franchise. I’m talking about things like “how likely are you to bury half your children?”, and “how likely are you to be raped or murdered?” We’ve made ourselves so comfortable now (which is great) that we’ve forgotten how unusual our circumstances are and lost interest in how we created them. It’s not a comment on the intelligence of the average historical person, or the richness of their emotional life. It’s just an acknowledgement that the tools we used to try to improve our lot for most of human history (including “common sense”) were not very successful, at least compared to the ones we’re using now.
benj111 8y ago
The discussed algorithm doesn't match reality though. The problem as stated, includes (although there may be variants): "•After evaluating a person you can offer them a job. But if you reject them at that point, you can never come back to them. •You want to choose the best person in the sample. Every other outcome except choosing the very best person is equally bad." In reality choosing the 2nd best mate or candidate isn't much worse than choosing the best and is certainly better than choosing the worst (unless you believe in 'the one'?). And in reality we can go back to rejected candidates / mates. My understanding of the article is that that is their problem (with the problem) also.
Maken 8y ago
In absence of a good model, an ad-hoc heuristic (that seems to work just fine in most cases) is not such a bad choice.
coldtea 8y ago
>Conventional wisdom and common sense really means "using an ill defined heuristic", which isn't so obviously better than the discussed algorithm. If the ill-defined heuristic has survived for millennia, then it's probably better than so new algorithm in the context it is used. It shows good survival characteristics, and people don't keep around stuff they don't benefit from for millennia.

ineedasername 8y ago

Well, in the case of something like dating, I'm not so sure. If in your first serious relationship you find yourself saying, "I really love this person. They're fantastic. I don't want to give them up." Conventional wisdom would probably say, "Well, don't give them up then."

jakobegger 8y ago

Our "common sense" has been shaped by the experiences of thousands of generations before us, and it has worked out so far. I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly.

dabbledash 8y ago
Things started “working out” pretty recently, once we started applying more rigor to our thinking. Life in the thousands of generations before was pretty rough by comparison, to put it very mildly.
- coldtea 8y ago
  That's a naive oversimplification -- the kind of modern thinking that considers history some kind of shit-hole and ours the first enlightened era. People had extremely rich lives, deep thoughts, and interesting problems to solve, throughout the 3-4K years of history. So Joe Sixpack today, or even a Joe IvyLeagueDegree today is no more sophisticated than e.g. a citizen of ancient Athens or Rome or Bagdad in most everyday matters.
  - dabbledash 8y ago
    Pre-industrial society was a shithole for most people compared to the present. And I’m not basing that on metrics like literacy or access to political franchise. I’m talking about things like “how likely are you to bury half your children?”, and “how likely are you to be raped or murdered?” We’ve made ourselves so comfortable now (which is great) that we’ve forgotten how unusual our circumstances are and lost interest in how we created them. It’s not a comment on the intelligence of the average historical person, or the richness of their emotional life. It’s just an acknowledgement that the tools we used to try to improve our lot for most of human history (including “common sense”) were not very successful, at least compared to the ones we’re using now.

benj111 8y ago

The discussed algorithm doesn't match reality though. The problem as stated, includes (although there may be variants): "•After evaluating a person you can offer them a job. But if you reject them at that point, you can never come back to them. •You want to choose the best person in the sample. Every other outcome except choosing the very best person is equally bad." In reality choosing the 2nd best mate or candidate isn't much worse than choosing the best and is certainly better than choosing the worst (unless you believe in 'the one'?). And in reality we can go back to rejected candidates / mates. My understanding of the article is that that is their problem (with the problem) also.

Maken 8y ago

In absence of a good model, an ad-hoc heuristic (that seems to work just fine in most cases) is not such a bad choice.

coldtea 8y ago

>Conventional wisdom and common sense really means "using an ill defined heuristic", which isn't so obviously better than the discussed algorithm. If the ill-defined heuristic has survived for millennia, then it's probably better than so new algorithm in the context it is used. It shows good survival characteristics, and people don't keep around stuff they don't benefit from for millennia.