Against Learning From Dramatic Events
www.astralcodexten.com
...

I did fake Bayesian math with some plausible numbers, and found that if I started out believing there was a 20% per decade chance of a lab leak pandemic, then if COVID was proven to be a lab leak, I should update to 27.5%, and if COVID was proven not to be a lab leak, I should stay around 19-20%

This is so confusing: why bother doing “fake” math? How does he justify these numbers? Let’s look at the footnote:

Assume that before COVID, you were considering two theories:

  1. Lab Leaks Common: There is a 33% chance of a lab-leak-caused pandemic per decade.
  2. Lab Leaks Rare: There is a 10% chance of a lab-leak-caused pandemic per decade.

And suppose before COVID you were 50-50 about which of these were true. If your first decade of observations includes a lab-leak-caused pandemic, you should update your probability over theories to 76-24, which changes your overall probability of pandemic per decade from 21% to 27.5%.

Oh, he doesn’t, he just made the numbers up! “I don’t have actual evidence to support my claims, so I’ll just make up data and call myself a ‘good Bayesian’ to look smart.” Seriously, how could a reasonable person have been expected to be concerned about lab leaks before COVID? It simply wasn’t something in the public consciousness. This looks like some serious hindsight bias to me.

I don’t entirely accept this argument - I think whether or not it was a lab leak matters in order to convince stupid people, who don’t know how to use probabilities and don’t believe anything can go wrong until it’s gone wrong before. But in a world without stupid people, no, it wouldn’t matter.

Ah, no need to make the numbers make sense, because stupid people wouldn’t understand the argument anyway. Quite literally: “To be fair, you have to have a really high IQ to understand my shitty blog posts. The Bayesian math is is extremely subtle…” And, convince stupid people of what, exactly? He doesn’t say, so what was the point of all the fake probabilities? What a prick.

  • SamuraiBeandog@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    I’m not a fanboy or necessarrily agree with his argument, but you’re seriously missing the point of what he’s trying to say. He’s just talking about how big, mediapathic events can unduly influence people’s perception of probability and risk. He doesn’t need actual real world numbers to show how this works, he’s just demonstrating how the math works and how the numbers change. He isn’t trying to convince stupid people of anything, they aren’t his target audience and they will never think this way.

    • self@awful.systemsMEnglish
      0·
      11 months ago

      oh yeah, scott would never use bad math to force a monstrous point

      Take sexual harassment. Surveys suggest that about 5% of people admit to having sexually harassed someone at some point in their lives; given that it’s the kind of thing people have every reason to lie about, the real number is probably higher. Let’s say 10%.

      So if there’s a community of 10,000 people, probably 1,000 of them have sexually harassed someone. So when you hear on the news that someone in that community sexually harassed someone, it shouldn’t change your opinion of that community at all. You started off pretty sure there were about 1,000, and now you know that there is at least one. How is that an update?!

      Still, every few weeks there’s a story about someone committing sexual harassment in (let’s say) the model airplane building community, and then everyone spends a few days talking about how airplanes are sexist and they always knew the model builders were up to no good.

      I mean this is just how people work! they hear about one case of sexual harassment, incorrectly update the probabilities in their heads, and then The Left convinces them that airplanes are sexist. these people are too stupid to have thoughts like “sexual harassment is happening way too often given the small size of the model airplane building community, and listening to the victims allowed me to figure out some of the systemic factors for why that’s the case for that community” and that’s why they fall into real, definitely not made up by scott to make the people he doesn’t like seem ridiculous, beliefs like airplanes being sexist. how dare these stupid people exist outside of Scott’s extremely mid imagination.

      come the fuck on. this isn’t our first scott alexander post.

      • maol@awful.systemsEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        Why didn’t he calculate how many people are sexually harassed in a community? That seems a bit relevant, considering that most sexual harrassers harrass multiple people.

        • Soyweiser@awful.systemsEnglish
          0·
          11 months ago

          Well those people who were sexually harassed actually were mentally unstable and have a history of lying about being sexually harassed so we shouldn’t take them seriously. (A thing Scott actually said, as a psychologist who should know that the behavior above actually makes people a higher risk of being assaulted, after (not 100% sure if after or during the accusations btw, but that doesn’t matter that much, a wizard psych should know better!) somebody killed themselves over all this).

          Scott defending or excusing the abuse in the wider LW community is very much a pattern now. (Eurgh, im noticing im getting a bit angry about this all over again, best to just not engage with this stuff and do other things (got rid of the posts here which might start further discussions and stopped reading Scotts beigeness about probability theory and sexual abuse post)).

          • TinyTimmyTokyo@awful.systemsEnglish
            0·
            11 months ago

            Exactly. It would be easier to take Scott’s argument more seriously if it wasn’t coming from the very same person who previously labeled as unstable and thereby non-credible a woman who accused his rationalist buddies of sexual harrassment – a woman who, by the way, went on to die by suicide.

            So fuck him and his contrived rationalizations.

      • David Gerard@awful.systemsMEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        Take sexual harassment.

        my Bayesian priors tell me this is what Scott’s post is actually about, and even more shit is a bit close to dropping

        though obv i’m just catastrophising on single events that keep on happening

        EDIT: oh, of course it’ll be yet more shit coming down the line from abusers in EA

    • swlabr@awful.systemsEnglish
      0·
      11 months ago

      Hey guys look it’s the Scott whisperer, Mr. Beandog. Let’s see what he’s got for us today:

      I’m not a fanboy

      sure

      or necessarrily agree with his argument

      surely then, you wouldn’t feel the need to 'splain it

      but you’re seriously missing the point of what he’s trying to say.

      oh ok

      He’s just talking about how big, mediapathic events can unduly influence people’s perception of probability and risk

      No, that isn’t what he is saying, actually.

      He doesn’t need actual real world numbers to show how this works, he’s just demonstrating how the math works and how the numbers change

      He does, actually. You can’t make fake mathematical statements about the real world and expect me to just buy your argument. He is demonstrating how the math hypothetically works in a scenario where he cooks the numbers. There is no reason why one should extrapolate that to the real world.

      He isn’t trying to convince stupid people of anything, they aren’t his target audience and they will never think this way.

      Oh ok. prior updated. Coulda sworn his target audience was morons.

      • SamuraiBeandog@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        It’s fine, I get that this is “sneer club”, where being a dick is more valued than being logical. Like, if you had more detailed critique than “no, you can’t do that”, maybe this would be a conversation worth having with you.

    • Amoeba_Girl@awful.systemsEnglish
      0·
      11 months ago

      He isn’t trying to convince stupid people of anything, they aren’t his target audience and they will never think this way.

      you think “stupid people” is a meaningful social category, opinion dismissed.

    • Architeuthis@awful.systemsEnglish
      0·
      11 months ago

      you’re seriously missing the point of what he’s trying to say. He’s just talking about [extremely mundane and self evident motte argument]

      Nah, we’re just not giving him the benefit of a doubt and also have a lot of context to work with.

      Consider the fact that he explicitly writes that you are allowed to reconsider your assumptions on domestic terrorism if a second trans mass shooter incident “happens in a row” but a few paragraphs later Effective Altruists blowing up both FTX and OpenAI in the space of a year the second incident is immediately laundered away as the unfortunate result of them overcorrecting in good faith against unchecked CEO power.

      This should stick out even to one approaching this with a blank slate perspective in my opinion.