2 ms·
Probably a good point. Like that anecdote about the studying the WW2 planes that went down vs the ones that made it back to see where to add more armour.
by aleksiy123 4y ago
Probably a good point.
Like that anecdote about the studying the WW2 planes that went down vs the ones that made it back to see where to add more armour.
- theptip 4y agoTo be fair, in that anecdote you are extracting meaningful information just from observing the literal survivors, which sort of points in the opposite direction to the GP’s point. I’d say examining survivors is useful and can provide information, but you need to be careful to correct for survivorship bias. But that’s not to say you cannot gain any information from examining cohorts of survivors. I think most people probably under-correct for survivorship bias so it’s good general advice to highlight it.
- ip26 4y agoThe insight of the plane story is turning it around, though, to indirectly study the failures (which were not available for study) “What is it the successful planes do? Well, they didn’t get shot here (points)”