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

471–480 of 541 posts

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#471

Post by HPsquared »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #363
mkolodny wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slippery slope is a fallacy, not a principle. Just because you took N steps, that doesn't necessarily mean you will take N+1 steps. It's a convincing fallacy because sometimes you do take N+1 steps. But just like in the article, heuristics aren't always right.

Like all fallacies, it's only a fallacy when it's fallacious. Otherwise, it's just a regular d argument.

Maybe fallacies could be renamed "logical hazards" or something like that. Arguments that are at high risk of being false and require extra care, but not automatically false.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#472

Post by romwell »

vishnugupta wrote: post #432
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…

> for a lifelong hunter, 1:5000 are pretty bad odds There’s a term for this which I’m unable to recall and it’s not easy to Google. Would greatly appreciate if someone could help me out here!!

Compound interest? Exponential decay? Both apply here.

Probability of surviving a night under a tree is (1-1/5000).

15 years of hunting is roughly 5000 nights. The chances of never getting hit by a tree over that period are (1-1/5000) for each night, which compounds to

    (1-1/5000)^5000 ≈ 1/e ≈ 1/2.7
That's to say, the odds are 3:2 (at least!) that you'd get killed by a tree in 15 years.

Make it at least 5:1 for 30 years.

That's to say, at least 5 out of 6 hunters who sleep under a tree every day wouldn't survive doing it for 30 years.

And that, children, is why credit cards are a scary thing.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#473

Post by cryptonym »

borroka wrote: post #372
Spinnaker_ wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a very weird idea of what security guards do. They don't sit in front of the entrance all night, scaring off would-be robbers. They are inside the building, in their booth, probably looking over some monitors. They do not provide a deterrent, they just call the cops if something does happen. Robbers have no clue if they are there or not. The heuristic works fine.

I have a very clear idea of what security guards do and I don't know where you got that I believe they "sit in front of the entrance all night" (which they do very often in South America, by the way, among other locations). Any "reasonable robber", which means maybe not your early teen looking for some adrenaline or the out-of-their-mind tweakers, knows or checks whether there are any security guards in a building in…

You may attract lot more robbers if anyone can easily know there is no security guard but just a stone.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#474

Post by vmurthy »

vishnugupta wrote: post #432
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…

> for a lifelong hunter, 1:5000 are pretty bad odds There’s a term for this which I’m unable to recall and it’s not easy to Google. Would greatly appreciate if someone could help me out here!!

Ergodicity? E.g. A single player playing Russian roulette for a 100 times v/s 100 players playing it once are very different risks for the single player :)

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#475

Post by hgomersall »

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.

"Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end" ~Edward Whymper

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#476

Post by vishnugupta »

vmurthy wrote: post #474
vishnugupta wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for a lifelong hunter, 1:5000 are pretty bad odds There’s a term for this which I’m unable to recall and it’s not easy to Google. Would greatly appreciate if someone could help me out here!!

Ergodicity? E.g. A single player playing Russian roulette for a 100 times v/s 100 players playing it once are very different risks for the single player :)

That's it, thank you!

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#477

Post by coldtea »

refurb wrote: post #378
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…

But the odds aren’t additive. If you sleep under a tree 4999 times and nothing happens, that doesn’t mean the 5000 time you sleep under one you’ll get crushed. Each and every time you have a 1 in 5000 chance.

Don't have to be additive to "add up".

>If you sleep under a tree 4999 times and nothing happens, that doesn’t mean the 5000 time you sleep under one you’ll get crushed.

No, but it means you have far more overall chances of getting crushed if you do it 5000 times, than if you do it once or twice.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#479

Post by reducesuffering »

yupper32 wrote: post #127
scoofy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, this is a weird example, but i feel like it's like Scott Auckerman says in Comedy Bang Bang, when he introduces the show. He'll do the welcome, and explain the show, and inevitably some guess will retort that this is silly, since everyone knows what the show is about, but he constantly responds with: "every episode is somebody's first episode." These ideas that should be obvious to anyone who's studied advanc…

But it's not interesting, it's not introducing anyone to advanced statistics or formal logic, it's not showing any real world uses that can be applied by anyone coming of age. It's just generalized parables by someone not in any of the fields or positions mentioned, some weak conclusions, and a "Heuristics That Almost Always Works" book title.

> by someone not in any of the fields or positions mentioned

Author is an MD (doctor)...

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#480

Post by Litost »

throw1234651234 wrote: post #342
bluGill wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the risks are greatest when you reach complacency. Beginners, even bold ones, take some care. You mostly see this in things like forklift drivers because it takes years of doing the same thing every day before you really get expert enough to be complacent

There is also something called "Normalization of Deviance", defined better by a quote: "Today, the term normalization of deviance — the gradual process by which the unacceptable becomes acceptable in the absence of adverse consequences — can be applied as legitimately to the human factors risks in airline operations as to the Challenger accident." * Most of you have probably heard of it in the context of fighter pilo…

Thanks for posting these, I'd only seen Normalisation of Deviance mentioned in these two youtube videos by Mike Mullane and never thought to look any further:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzj9Msli5o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWxk5t4hFAg

and the uploader references some further links:

https://www.fireengineering.com/leadership/firefighter-safet...

https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2017/05/safety-in-mind...

and references this book (about the Challenger Disaster):

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B011DAS53Y/

which has an overview here:

http://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/The%20Challenger%20La...

including these two excerpts I found interesting in this context: "Chapter nine she explains how conformity to the rules, and the work culture, led to the disaster, and not the violation of any rules, as thought by many of the investigators. She concludes her book with a chapter on lessons learned."

"She mainly emphasizes on the long-term impact of institutionalization of the political pressure and economic factors, that results in a “culture of production”."

Post reply on HN