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

301–310 of 541 posts

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#301

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

crent wrote: post #199
dwohnitmok wrote: post #183

The last sentence of the edit the author provides is the key insight of this piece. > the existence of experts using heuristics causes predictable over-updates towards those heuristics. That's the essence of this piece. If you expect that consultation with experts will leave you with a more accurate picture of things than before consultation, you should first be sure that their heuristics are not equivalent to readin…

Which is the rub, right? How can a non-expert reasonably come to a conclusion of whether or not an expert's prediction is baseless or is actually solid/insightful?

Clearly by listening to some rando on YouTube that is pointing out how the whole system is rigged /s

In seriousness, I think it is actually possible for people to understand enough information that they need to make a decision, even if they don't understand it to the level of an expert. I apologize for bringing Covid into this, but here was my analysis for understanding the mRNA vaccines:

1. The mRNA vaccines contain a small snippet of mRNA wrapped in a lipid bubble. This mRNA codes for spike proteins that are present on SARS-COV-2.

2. Your body takes up these lipid cells, translates the mRNA into spike proteins, and then your body recognizes those spike proteins as foreign and builds an immune response to them.

There is really nothing in the above (i.e. mRNA translation, the immune response, etc.) that I didn't learn in high school biology. There are certainly a ton of details that an expert is much more aware of. And, in evaluating my risk, there is certainly a ton of stuff there that I don't know, e.g. what's the probability of my body having a severe negative (a) immune response or (b) other reaction to the spike proteins in my body.

But all that said, even given all of the things I couldn't know because I'm not an expert, the rough details made it clear to me that, in any case, getting vaccinated should certainly be less detrimental than actually getting Covid, which was highly likely. That's why I get frustrated by some of the "trust the science" messages. You don't need to "trust" the science. The basics of the science are understandable by anyone with a high school degree.

Another thing I think is important to understand is that it may make a ton of sense to give very different societal recommendations versus individual recommendations. For example, I think both of the following are easily provably true:

1. Publishing recommendations of "eat less and exercise" is ineffective in combating obesity at the societal level.

2. For an individual, eating less and exercising is the number one way to lose weight.

That is, we know that most people are unable to stick with the recommendations of eating less and exercising more, and we have decades of data to prove it. For an individual, though, if you are able to set up a system to stick with your plan, this is the best way to lose weight.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#302

Post by tshaddox »

the_af wrote: post #72

One interesting twist on the doctor example: we know she is almost always right that it's nothing, that it will all go away and that just two aspirins are ok. The article correctly points out that she will miss one or two cases where it was a terrible disease instead, and that her prescription of aspirin and to go away and rest will be misguided. However... doctors must do more than just cure you. They must also "do…

Not to mention that "take two aspirin and let me know if it doesn't get better" is probably literally the best way to handle a case that could be something serious, but there's no way to feasibly discern yet whether it is something serious. Obviously the specifics of this type of scenario can change over time, e.g. if MRIs or CT scans became very cheap and easy to administer, I suspect they would become part of these routine exams.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#303

Post by PaulHoule »

gilgad13 wrote: post #261
timClicks wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

My wife teaches people to ride horses for a living so we talk about the safety of that.

You hear a lot about people who get seriously injured riding who are often professionals or people who ride competitively at a high level. They are doing dangerous things and doing a lot of them.

We don't think it is that dangerous for people who ride at the level we do, out of maybe 15 years we've had one broken bone.

The other day I noticed that we had acquired a used horse blanket from another barn in the area which is a running joke at our barn because of their bad safety culture. They are a "better" barn than ours in that they are attached to the show circuit at a higher level than the bottom, but we are always hearing about crazy accidents that happen there. When I was learning to ride there they had a confusing situation almost like

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19810217-...

with too many lessons going on at once where I wound up going over a jump by accident after a "near miss" in which I almost did. (I never thought I could go over a jump and survive, as it was I had about two seconds to figure out that I had to trust the horse and hang on and I did alright...)

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#304

Post by nemonemo »

jozvolskyef wrote: post #264
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

Maybe being an ER doctor itself could bias their decisions more favorable toward CT scans. ER people may see dead people & people with tumors more often than pediatric doctors in their offices. The usual pediatric doctors would see much more patients with ear infections.

Also, to ER people, knowing the root cause is probably important for patients' survival, whereas for pediatric doctors, more often than not, lives are not at stake and customer service/easing parents' fear is more important.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#305

Post by tshaddox »

pessimizer wrote: post #173
stevage wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's such an annoying metaphor for those of us who live in a country where all swans are black.

It's an annoying metaphor anyway. If you've defined a swan as a particular type of white bird, it's impossible for a black swan to ever come. "Black swan" is just a tautological term for new thing we've never seen before , but pretending to be a term for known thing that suddenly behaved differently. Sometimes things happen that, in order to make money or cut costs, we convinced people were impossible.

> "Black swan" is just a tautological term for new thing we've never seen before, but pretending to be a term for known thing that suddenly behaved differently.

Right. "Black swan" means "a new thing we've never seen before," but of course few people go around thinking "I will never encounter a new thing that I've never seen before."

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#306

Post by culi »

bmc7505 wrote: post #219

"Fifty thousand years ago there were these three guys spread out across the plain and they each heard something rustling in the grass. The first one thought it was a tiger, and he ran like hell, and it was a tiger but the guy got away. The second one thought the rustling was a tiger and he ran like hell, but it was only the wind and his friends all laughed at him for being such a chickenshit. But the third guy though…

Natural selection doesn't always favor the paranoid. Running like hell requires a lot of energy and if we're overly paranoid, we might just run ourselves to death whenever the wind is wilder than usual

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#307

Post by the_af »

alexfrydl wrote: post #145
the_af wrote: post #72

One interesting twist on the doctor example: we know she is almost always right that it's nothing, that it will all go away and that just two aspirins are ok. The article correctly points out that she will miss one or two cases where it was a terrible disease instead, and that her prescription of aspirin and to go away and rest will be misguided. However... doctors must do more than just cure you. They must also "do…

The problem is that people are not statistics. It may sound reasonable on the surface to say that this heuristic minimizes harm on average because she doesn't perform unnecessary interventions on the 99.9%. However, there are still actual human beings in the 0.1% who are harmed. What you're really saying is that if a group of people is small enough, it's fair for them to suffer preventable harm if preventing it would…

I am arguing that the doctor must remain alert and not be lazy (though doctors are often overworked and tired, but that's a different problem), but that her default of "aspirin and rest" is a good one.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#308

Post by tshaddox »

Retric wrote: post #294
tshaddox wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely there's some point where the ability of the individual to not expend energy inefficiently becomes balanced with the ability of the organism to evade tigers. It's clearly not true that the individual who thinks they hear a tiger more often (without bound) will be more successful at surviving/reproducing.

Sure, but that balance point still involves a lot of needless running before the energy costs become an issue.

This is really just an empirical question in ethology, but if I had to guess I'd say that prey animal in fact don't do a lot of needless running. On the contrary, I'd suspect their sense do a pretty darn good job at quickly determining the risk of predation.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#309

Post by ask_b123 »

toss1 wrote: post #266
jaggederest wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Wow, that's terrifying and a good cautionary tale.

Also, when I read

> I’m hoping you can you forgive me as a minister of religion for likening this story to a spiritual cautionary tale. Yes, we do need to live each day as if it might be our last.

I thought, "Hmm, sounds adventist", and sure enough :-)

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#310

Post by Retric »

tshaddox wrote: post #308
Retric wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that balance point still involves a lot of needless running before the energy costs become an issue.

This is really just an empirical question in ethology, but if I had to guess I'd say that prey animal in fact don't do a lot of needless running. On the contrary, I'd suspect their sense do a pretty darn good job at quickly determining the risk of predation.

I regularly see prey animals doing a lot of running from me when I am not a threat to them. Even remote observation of fairly large prey animals like goats in their natural environment show them seemingly randomly get spooked.
Post reply on HN