3 ms·
I don't think I've seen that before. But the article you linked doesn't make the conclusion you suggest at all, instead they pose a corrected value. If indeed n
by tinco 3y ago
I don't think I've seen that before. But the article you linked doesn't make the conclusion you suggest at all, instead they pose a corrected value. If indeed no one estimating had no information at all, the average length of Chinese person's nose would be close to that corrected value.
It's the same with this topic. You won't get an answer to the question "Is this particular paper true or not?" but you'll get an answer to the question "Are papers submitted under these circumstances making claims like this likely to be true?". The crowd will only answer the question they can answer. I think that's from "Thinking fast and slow".
- gilleain 3y agoIt's not well explained in the version I linked (apologies, I should have looked for a clearer version). The point of the story when I originally heard it is that no one has SEEN the Emperor's nose. So any statistical function (like averaging) of estimates is totally useless as they are all guesses. No one has seen 'papers submitted under these circumstances' so no amount of 'crowd wisdom' will make any difference. Also, as an aside the idea that 'the crowd will only answer the question they can answer' is ... bizarre. People will answer anything you ask them, and you have no way to know if they are just making it up.