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

411–420 of 541 posts

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#411

Post by mkolodny »

bhuber wrote: post #382
mkolodny wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slippery slope arguments are inherently fallacies. They don't prove that something will happen. Just because you can justify the next climb on the same basis, that doesn't mean you will. You could decide that you've already tested the odds one too many times.

Don't get on that greased sliding board that ends at the top of a cliff. Once you start sliding, it will be hard to stop because of the grease, and then once you slide off then end you will fall and die. Do you really think this slippery slope argument is a fallacy? FWIW, wikipedia acknowledges slippery slope can be a legit argument when the slope, and it's chain of consequences, are actually real. https://en.m.wikip…

From your linked article:

> The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In this sense, it constitutes an informal fallacy.

"If you take N steps, you will take N+1 steps" is a fallacy whenever it's possible that you won't take N+1 steps.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#412

Post by morgante »

HWR_14 wrote: post #399
mort96 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're reading it wrong. After a long life of rock climbing, there's no significant risk of doing it one last time or 10 last times (ignoring the effect of old age itself and whatever). But when you're in earlier stages of your life, you're asking a different question: You're asking, is this something I want to do hundreds or thousands of times in my life, knowing that each of those times has a small chance o…

That would be a reason to have not climbed more than a specific rate ever. It wouldn't be a reason to scale down the rate of climbing as you age.

The assumption is that it's desirable to have a descending climbing frequency instead of uniform.

This makes a lot of sense, as when you're younger frequent climbing would help you to develop proficiency quickly and your body allows you to joy it fully. Plus the social benefits are probably higher when younger.

Once you're older, it's potentially less enjoyable (as your body ages) and you don't need to worry as much about rapidly gaining proficiency.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#413

Post by bujak300 »

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…

Need to consider that headline capturing objectives ar a few in a lifetime and training goes on all the time.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#414

Post by bujak300 »

datameta wrote: post #240
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.

Also known as an advanced beginner, the stage before competency. Someone who has enough knowledge to, as they say, "be dangerous".

They call it the "intermediate syndrome" in freeflying.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#416

Post by ArcMex »

stavros wrote: post #365
toss1 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Oh man, that's terrible. I can certainly understand how someone without a checklist that is verified by two people can do that, especially if you have a backpack on to mask the fact that the parachute is missing. Many times if I wear a tight jacket in the car, I forget to put my seat belt on, because I unconsciously mistake the pressure of the jacket for the seatbelt's, even though putting on a seat belt is usually t…

I generally take off my jacket before driving for that very reason.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#417

Post by sinuhe69 »

The heuristics are actually ok. The only thing is missed is not accounting for adverse events.

Risk = Odd x Impact

In the examples, the odd is very low but the impacts could be fatal. That’s where is NOT OK to ignore. But if the risk is low, you can follow whatever your momentum approach is.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#418

Post by KerryJones »

This reminds me of some of the studies illustrated in The Undoing Project (story of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, leading behavior psychologists) where it showed that incredibly simplistic algorithms could be doctors in predicting whether a tumor was cancerous or benign.

They asked the doctors what factors to look for, the doctors could accurately describe what to look for. They then created a program that did exactly those things and pitted it against the doctors expecting it to perform poorly and needing iteration -- but it beat the very doctors that described the process. It beat most doctors that describe the process.

More data here: https://fs.blog/algorithms-complex-decision-making/

A boring sounding book details more examples: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963878492/

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#419

Post by kqr »

dsr_ wrote: post #228
kqr wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's actually a rational explanation for that: humans don't care very much about burning in hell for all eternity, when it comes down to it. There's actually a similar though experiment that might seem even more bizarre: I could tell you "give me $100 or I will kill you tomorrow" and you probably wouldn't give me the $100. That's because when it comes down to it, humans don't see the loss of their life as that big…

Here's the thing: if you have just killed five people, "give me $100 or I will kill you tomorrow" becomes a much more effective threat. One-time games and repeated games have different strategies.

It becomes more effective only because it changes the probability estimation of the outcome.

Life is a repeated game of decisions that compound on each other, so that difference is irrelevant.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#420

Post by jancsika »

travisjungroth wrote: post #355
jancsika wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By getting a second or third opinion, no?

Not really. Get three opinions from professionals giving the default answer and you have three default answers. Because it’s non-competitive it doesn’t even require coordination. Get three home appraisals in 2007 and they’re all coming in at the offer. They don’t have to know each other, they’re just aligned with the same individual incentives.

> Get three opinions from professionals giving the default answer and you have three default answers.

What's the likelihood they've all standardized on the exact same default heuristic?

But even if they did, at least in some of the examples giving the same default answer would be literally impossible when 2nd opinions are taken into account.

The security guard example is instructive. Scatter a truckload of security guards throughout the entire building. They cannot all occupy the same space at the same time. Consequently, the sound of ostensible wind to one security guard is the sound of a robber breathing to another security guard.

Scatter a truckload of rocks throughout the entire building. Now you have a bunch of goddamned rocks.

I'm no digital signal processing professional but by substituting rocks I'd say we suffered a loss in fidelity.

Post reply on HN