Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Heuristics that almost always work

astralcodexten.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 541 posts

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#261

Post by gilgad13 »

timClicks wrote: post #211
derbOac wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There are bold X, and old X, but no old, bold X." Replace X with any practitioners subject to sufficient risk as a result of their practice. I first heard it in the context of mushroom foraging.

The risks are highest when learners are at a beginner to intermediate stage. They know the basics, and have gained some confidence, but don't know enough to get themselves out of trouble. This is called Stage 1 in the Gordon Model of learning: unconscious incompetence.

While this is true, in the context of alpine climbing where I first heard this statement, the bold alpinists who die young are very much not beginner-intermediates. I've interpreted this differently than just the "Bathtub Curve"[1] applied to dangerous pursuits.

Rather, there is a certain amount of objective risk in alpine environments, and the more time you put yourself in that environment, especially in locations you aren't familiar with, the greater the chance that something will eventually go wrong.

I'm always surprised by the number of famous alpinists who weren't killed on their progressive, headline-capturing attempts but rather on training attempts and lesser objectives.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#262

Post by SomewhatLikely »

My oversimplification/takeaway: When false negatives are very rare and their costs very high you can't rely on an empirical assessment of a detector's accuracy, it will be near 100%. Because the costs of false negatives are so much higher than the costs of false positives you could focus on false negative rate, but there's not enough data points and the costs of getting a single false negative are too high to estimate this empirically. You need to audit the procedures to determine if the detector can reasonably detect the thing you are interested in.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#263

Post by toss1 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #30

This story reminded me of a story written by a Czech biologist who studied animals in Papua-New Guinea and went to a hunt with a group of local tribesmen. The dusk was approaching, they were still in the forest and he proposed that they could sleep under a tree. The hunters were adamant in their refusal: no, this is dangerous, a tree might fall on you in your sleep and kill you . He relented, but silently considered…

Yup, and the article ends with this:

>>All these things are almost always true. But Heuristics That Almost Always Work tempt us to be more certain than we should of each

The most important thing to realize about risk is this:

The difference between [using knowledge, skill, technology, and planning to manage risk] vs. [getting away with something]

If you aren't managing risk, it is managing you. And you can get away with something for a long time, but it is always a matter of until you don't, and then it is too 'effin late for you.

When you are managing the risk, you can make an entire career or lifetime of doing things that will otherwise kill you in seconds, scuba diving, flying, mountaineering, building tall structures, working with molten metal or dangerous chemicals, etc., etc., etc.

You can also get away with very dangerous things for at least enough time to fool you into thinking you are smart. The article discusses this at length.

This is why when you need to understand and manage the risks, and also be very alert to close calls - they mean that even though you thought you're managing, you've actually gone into the land of [getting away with it], just saved by Pure Dumb Luck. Don't say "it's okay it worked", look at why, because you might not have as much PDL next time.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#264

Post by jozvolskyef »

pards wrote: post #131

The doctor rings true. I had 3 separate doctors on 3 separate occasions diagnose my 21 month old son with an ear infection, instead of the plum-sized malignant brain tumour that it was. From their point of view, pediatric brain tumours are very rare and ear infections are common. Their 99% heuristic almost killed him. That was 2010. He survived and is now a vibrant 13 year old, but only because of one curious intern/…

It is a tough call this one. If my calculations are correct, based on data from[1], male infant head CT scans cause one excess death per ~3k scans. There must have been something else than a remote possibility to warrant ordering it.

[1]: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/full/10.2214/AJR.12.10294

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#265

Post by ummonk »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #43
yupper32 wrote: post #39

I don't understand how articles like this get upvoted. Who is getting value from this? This reads like some generic LinkedIn CEO post that sounds deep on the surface but actually means nothing.

It seems to make its point pretty clearly to me: "just naysay" is a strategy that is extremely effective/accurate in many domains, but provides no actual value compared to people attempting more honest evaluations or predictions. I just realized it's possible I'm being whooshed by your comment.

Well he also claims that the rock has higher Brier scores than all the futurists, which would imply that in this example the futurists aren't actually adding any value with their attempts at honest evaluations and predictions.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#266

Post by toss1 »

jaggederest wrote: post #193
lapetitejort wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this the reverse of the Gambler's Fallacy? Instead of "The numbers haven't hit in a while, therefore they're going to hit soon." it's "The numbers haven't hit yet, therefore they're never gonna hit."

Also known as complacency. Working in a woodshop, one of the things you are most vulnerable to is failing to respect the danger you're in. This is why many experienced woodworkers have been injured by e.g. a table saw - you stop being as careful after such long exposure.

Yup, complacency can kill you.

In this case [0], a skydiver forgot to put on his parachute...

https://reverentialramblings.com/2018/08/15/the-skydiver-who...

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#267

Post by dTal »

beaned wrote: post #179
inglor_cz wrote: post #30

This story reminded me of a story written by a Czech biologist who studied animals in Papua-New Guinea and went to a hunt with a group of local tribesmen. The dusk was approaching, they were still in the forest and he proposed that they could sleep under a tree. The hunters were adamant in their refusal: no, this is dangerous, a tree might fall on you in your sleep and kill you . He relented, but silently considered…

Reminds me of the fact that on overage, one out of every hundred places you know will be experiencing a once-in-a-hundred-years event. When you hear once-in-a-hundred-year event, it makes it sound quite rare. One might look around and say (for example, in relation to climate) "why are so many of these happening?" But it is unsurprising statistically. If you know just a thousand distinct geographic places, about 10 of…

There's something intuitively misleading here, though I'm not sure what it is. I am looking at 100 square inches of floor right now and nothing unusual is happening in any of them.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#268

Post by e40 »

kbuchanan wrote: post #35
inglor_cz wrote: post #30

This story reminded me of a story written by a Czech biologist who studied animals in Papua-New Guinea and went to a hunt with a group of local tribesmen. The dusk was approaching, they were still in the forest and he proposed that they could sleep under a tree. The hunters were adamant in their refusal: no, this is dangerous, a tree might fall on you in your sleep and kill you . He relented, but silently considered…

It's a great example. This is the very reason I have scaled back the amount of time I rock climb as I've gotten older -- not because any individual outing is dangerous, but there's an element of Russian roulette wherein the mere act of doing it more often dramatically changes the risk.

Same reason I sold my motorcycle when I was 30. I had a good run of not being maimed, but the odds were not good for the future.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#269

Post by TeeMassive »

derbOac wrote: post #156
kbuchanan wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a great example. This is the very reason I have scaled back the amount of time I rock climb as I've gotten older -- not because any individual outing is dangerous, but there's an element of Russian roulette wherein the mere act of doing it more often dramatically changes the risk.

"There are bold X, and old X, but no old, bold X." Replace X with any practitioners subject to sufficient risk as a result of their practice. I first heard it in the context of mushroom foraging.

Yet the older they are the more they test in production.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#270

Post by ramoz »

pards wrote: post #131

The doctor rings true. I had 3 separate doctors on 3 separate occasions diagnose my 21 month old son with an ear infection, instead of the plum-sized malignant brain tumour that it was. From their point of view, pediatric brain tumours are very rare and ear infections are common. Their 99% heuristic almost killed him. That was 2010. He survived and is now a vibrant 13 year old, but only because of one curious intern/…

Thanks for sharing, and hope all is well now.

This also rung true for me, and is rather scary/disappointing.

I have a rule now, after experiencing cancer & failed remissions with a family member, which is to always do the deep check. Esp in any case of pain or discomfort that isn't normal.

Even a recent shoulder tear from lifting, the pain/discomfort wasn't something I had experienced before, so I went to a local ER (was worried about a dislocated shoulder). The young physician tried to usher me out with his confidence it was a normal injury most likely (he was right). I asked why not just do an x-ray and he gave me a response based on his heuristics. But the x-ray was an option if I wanted. So we did the x-ray and 20min later he was right.

Post reply on HN