7 ms·

It’s not even surprising without knowing about Pete: the newspaper isn’t going to publish the many that failed, so their own selection bias is the dominant effe

It’s not even surprising without knowing about Pete: the newspaper isn’t going to publish the many that failed, so their own selection bias is the dominant effect. Even if we take the probability of the group to be the probability of individuals, eg, rolling dice (“1 in 6 people rolls a 4!”). Lots of them opened, of them 70% failed, and one who didn’t happened to be named Pete. No more interesting than “Pete rolled a 4!” even though 83% of people don’t.

skybrian 1y ago
If a newspaper only publishes surprising results, but it’s unsurprising when they appear in the newspaper, then you’ve set up a paradox: a set that only contains nonmembers. I don’t think it’s valid to define “surprising” in such a self-referential way. When something unusual appears in the news, that doesn’t make it common. The probabilities are different before and after applying a filter.
- nemomarx 1y ago
  It doesn't make it a common outcome overall, but it makes it a common outcome for it to appear in the newspaper, right? It's just different meanings of "common".
  - skybrian 1y ago
    Yes, that's what I meant.
- zmgsabst 1y ago
  I didn’t say that, nor use any self-reference. > When something unusual appears in the news, that doesn’t make it common. This in particular isn’t even close to what I said, which was: rare events can be unsurprising in large datasets — as is the case with both dice rolls and restaurants succeeding.
  - skybrian 1y ago
    If rare events are unsurprising then I think you've defined surprising events out of existence? I mean, sure, someone will win the lottery, but it would very surprising if it happened to you. I guess this is just point of view. "Someone won the lottery" and "I won the lottery" describe the same event from very different perspectives.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- yusina 1y ago
  If 99.9% fail and you see one that didn't, then would it be surprising that it didn't? No! It's not 100%, so there must be some example. For that one it's not surprising. More precisely, it's not surprising that one exists. It may be surprising that this particular one survived, just as it wouldbe surprising that it's my neighbor who wins the lottery next week. But it's likely that somebody will, so if somebody has won, it won't be a surprise that somebody did.
  - skybrian 1y ago
    Yes, it seems like surprise has to depend on your point of view. There’s an enormous difference between “someone somewhere won the lottery” and “I won the lottery,” even if it’s describing the same event. It’s a question of how many other possibilities are considered similar to the one that happened. From a zoomed-out perspective, one win is as good as any another.
steveBK123 1y ago
People are also very even worse with conditional probabilities

skybrian 1y ago

If a newspaper only publishes surprising results, but it’s unsurprising when they appear in the newspaper, then you’ve set up a paradox: a set that only contains nonmembers. I don’t think it’s valid to define “surprising” in such a self-referential way. When something unusual appears in the news, that doesn’t make it common. The probabilities are different before and after applying a filter.

nemomarx 1y ago
It doesn't make it a common outcome overall, but it makes it a common outcome for it to appear in the newspaper, right? It's just different meanings of "common".
- skybrian 1y ago
  Yes, that's what I meant.
zmgsabst 1y ago
I didn’t say that, nor use any self-reference. > When something unusual appears in the news, that doesn’t make it common. This in particular isn’t even close to what I said, which was: rare events can be unsurprising in large datasets — as is the case with both dice rolls and restaurants succeeding.
- skybrian 1y ago
  If rare events are unsurprising then I think you've defined surprising events out of existence? I mean, sure, someone will win the lottery, but it would very surprising if it happened to you. I guess this is just point of view. "Someone won the lottery" and "I won the lottery" describe the same event from very different perspectives.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
yusina 1y ago
If 99.9% fail and you see one that didn't, then would it be surprising that it didn't? No! It's not 100%, so there must be some example. For that one it's not surprising. More precisely, it's not surprising that one exists. It may be surprising that this particular one survived, just as it wouldbe surprising that it's my neighbor who wins the lottery next week. But it's likely that somebody will, so if somebody has won, it won't be a surprise that somebody did.
- skybrian 1y ago
  Yes, it seems like surprise has to depend on your point of view. There’s an enormous difference between “someone somewhere won the lottery” and “I won the lottery,” even if it’s describing the same event. It’s a question of how many other possibilities are considered similar to the one that happened. From a zoomed-out perspective, one win is as good as any another.

steveBK123 1y ago

People are also very even worse with conditional probabilities