tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post5919827748175020319..comments2023-10-31T00:46:35.316+13:00Comments on Anti-Dismal: Aid Watch: reader survey (updated)Paul Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13731003529546075700noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-28444220876651033702009-05-27T20:24:22.812+12:002009-05-27T20:24:22.812+12:00So either I win the bet or the wording was too amb...So either I win the bet or the wording was too ambiguous for it to be called.Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-75670548493616273442009-05-26T10:38:45.436+12:002009-05-26T10:38:45.436+12:00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy
...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy<br /><br />http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/conjunction-fal.htmlEric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-48170001571221805582009-05-26T10:33:03.552+12:002009-05-26T10:33:03.552+12:00Matt: your version's better than mine, yup.
p...Matt: your version's better than mine, yup.<br /><br />p(X) >> p(X|R)*p(R)<br /><br />especially since p(R)=lim x-->0Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-85453924762189994672009-05-26T08:20:15.613+12:002009-05-26T08:20:15.613+12:00Crampton: but since every country has a leader, th...Crampton: but since every country has a leader, the first is also implicitly conditional.<br /><br />And shouldn't your formulation be:<br /><br />p(X) >> p(X|R)*p(R)<br /><br />instead of <br /><br />p(X) >> p(X)*p(R)<br /><br />If so, then >> is not true.matt bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-33465162298622008812009-05-25T21:59:38.386+12:002009-05-25T21:59:38.386+12:00I'm sure Easterly will reveal the answer. If he d...I'm sure Easterly will reveal the answer. If he doesn't, no resolution to bet. If Easterly says it's just a math problem, I win. <br /><br />Matt: The first I read as unconditional probability; the second, conditional.Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-68084563415568687662009-05-25T19:31:30.587+12:002009-05-25T19:31:30.587+12:00Contract on iPredict.
"This contract pays $1 if P...Contract on iPredict.<br /><br />"This contract pays $1 if Paul is right"<br /><br />Then pay the dollar now! I'm always right!!! :-)Paul Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13731003529546075700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-27352502092239897272009-05-25T18:19:16.898+12:002009-05-25T18:19:16.898+12:00Isn't the correct formulation:
1) P(succeed | ran...Isn't the correct formulation:<br /><br />1) P(succeed | randomly picked leader wisdom/capability from distribution); vs<br />2) P(succeed | wise leader)<br /><br />Perhaps the forumulation debate is Easterly's point.matt bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-34559270509941780702009-05-25T17:51:23.219+12:002009-05-25T17:51:23.219+12:00Contract on iPredict.
"This contract pays $1 if P...Contract on iPredict.<br /><br />"This contract pays $1 if Paul is right"<br /><br />Closing price is the last traded price at a set date.<br /><br />I wonder if it'd work.Matt Burgesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10256353079960538374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-44277585437334675002009-05-24T17:32:39.791+12:002009-05-24T17:32:39.791+12:00How do we determine a winner?How do we determine a winner?Paul Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13731003529546075700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-38810363052488260312009-05-24T16:50:35.037+12:002009-05-24T16:50:35.037+12:00Nah, it's a math problem. He didn't say &...Nah, it's a math problem. He didn't say "conditional on", he said "with". $50 bet if you're up for it.<br /><br />X|R>X|~R but p(X) >> p(X)*p(R)Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-91666760294906132342009-05-24T16:28:47.839+12:002009-05-24T16:28:47.839+12:00What if, what Easterly is trying to get at is p(X)...What if, what Easterly is trying to get at is p(X)+p(R). It depends on the relationship between X and R.Paul Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13731003529546075700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5404820640426099135.post-76790554995005820412009-05-24T16:25:30.325+12:002009-05-24T16:25:30.325+12:00Paul, it's a math problem. Think about it. S...Paul, it's a math problem. Think about it. Say X is economic development and R is wise leadership. Then<br /><br />p(X)> p(X)*p(R)Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.com