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

511–520 of 541 posts

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#511

Post by wutbrodo »

sfink wrote: post #257
OscarCunningham wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could calculate it by taking the average lifetime of a tree and dividing by the length of time slept and the number of trees in squashing distance.

Only if tree death is uniformly distributed over a tree's lifetime for some bizarre reason. And it isn't. The logic in the story is BS. First, you would never, ever get into a car with that logic. Second, trees just aren't that ephemeral. People who live in a forest would be very aware of when they do or don't fall (or more problematically, drop large branches.) It's not as straightforward as just avoiding storms or…

> First, you would never, ever get into a car with that logic.

The logic isn't applicable to any set of risks. As deadly as cars are, the risk of car crash death is much, much lower than 1/5000 per trip. It's probably closer to applicable to being a drunk driver, and "you would never operate a car drunk" is pretty accurate for many people.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#512

Post by wutbrodo »

lemmsjid wrote: post #314
somethingAlex wrote: post #203

I'm surprised how many people are just nitpicking the examples like they are supposed to be rigorous analogies. The point that I walked away with is that oftentimes experts use these same heuristics even when people assume they are not. People think that experts don't have to use them because they have better tools and skills at their disposal. However, for reasons involving human factors, they oftentimes do use them…

I wanted to take the overall point but I did get bogged down in the examples. The overall tone of the essay is philosophical and allegorical. For an essay with that tone to really make its point it needs to be crystalline in its clarity and feel a real depth of reasoning, otherwise it will lose the reader. Instead it makes rather extreme points in the examples that don't have to do with what I imagine the author want…

> For an essay with that tone to really make its point it needs to be crystalline in its clarity and feel a real depth of reasoning, otherwise it will lose the reader.

This has a lot to do with the community he's part of and still implicitly writes for. He's blown up in recent years, but the blog still has a strong core readerbase of people with significantly longer attention spans than the average person, among other things. In all the years I've read his work, the meandering, often-humorous examples are half the fun, which makes the discovery of the thesis more enjoyable as well.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#513

Post by jvanderbot »

borroka wrote: post #275

I read them as sloppy caricatures that provide little value to the conversation. Let's take the security guard: "The only problem is: he now provides literally no value. He’s excluded by fiat the possibility of ever being useful in any way. He could be losslessly replaced by a rock with the words “THERE ARE NO ROBBERS” on it." That is blatantly not true, the guard provide value since the wanna-be robbers don't know w…

Exactly this.

Null-confirming signals should not be considered evidence to discard the null hypothesis. Decision trees are OK, esp those that have "wait and see" near the root.

These derogatory calls to action and flame-posts against arbitrary "experts" are just tiring. Bring the evidence.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#514

Post by derbOac »

pugets wrote: post #490
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.

This line is famous in aviation, where X = pilots

Yeah after I read that many years ago I saw it come up in several other contexts (including aviation) and realized it probably originated elsewhere.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#515

Post by jvanderbot »

didibus wrote: post #455
fastball wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. You say it's a bad caricature, then provide an anecdotal example that seems to closely match the caricature.

I think OPs point is that the article ignores the reason why the heuristic is used in the first place, which is to optimize the process at scale. The real cost of gathering additional data and knowledge about the circumstances in the 0.01% chance you know that you have at this point, at scale, means you'll end up with worse overall outcome by not being able to scale to all events that need the attention. Now, if a do…

I agree: Null-confirming signals should not be considered evidence to discard the null hypothesis. Decision trees are OK, esp those that have "wait and see" near the root. "See if it goes away" is indeed an information-seeking behavior, and a low-cost one at that.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#516

Post by samastur »

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…

Isn't this somewhat expected?

They wouldn't be famous if they didn't succeed on headline-capturing attempts and there are only so many you can realistically do in life. They are dead however as doing dangerous things often enough will kill a substantial number of practitioners.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#517

Post by kamaal »

rendaw wrote: post #421
borroka wrote: post #275

I read them as sloppy caricatures that provide little value to the conversation. Let's take the security guard: "The only problem is: he now provides literally no value. He’s excluded by fiat the possibility of ever being useful in any way. He could be losslessly replaced by a rock with the words “THERE ARE NO ROBBERS” on it." That is blatantly not true, the guard provide value since the wanna-be robbers don't know w…

It wouldn't change much if the rock said "IT'S NOTHING, TAKE TWO ASPIRIN AND WAIT FOR IT TO GO AWAY AND CALL THIS NUMBER IF IT DOES NOT"

I know of a doctor who gave a seminar at our workplace.

His case was. The cure for most non serious illness, is mostly to wait. Not even medication.

This is why most people think homeopathy works.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#518

Post by Timpy »

ccalloway wrote: post #469
notahacker wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Takes the whole tree collapsing to kill the tree. A large enough branch (or a coconut, if we're on Papua) should suffice for a hunter.

The hunters said 'a tree might fall on you and kill you'? This is supposed to be a nugget of ancient wisdom. Now it turns out it's actually a coconut falling out of the tree? Are you providing this extra information? Or was it somehow implicit in the original telling? Is it possible that both the original teller, the reteller and you too, are starting from the (unfounded) assumption that the hunters know what they're…

I read somewhere that the Mongolians believed flowing water was sacred and they had a taboo about defecating near it. For the wrong reasons they accidentally prevented cholera. If avoiding sleeping under trees prevents tree falls, lightning strikes, coconut comas, snakes from dropping on you, and whatever else then it doesn't really matter why the hunters don't sleep under them does it? Not having coconuts to worry about is just a happy bonus to the survival statistics.

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#519

Post by dragontamer »

fastball wrote: post #405
dragontamer wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember hearing hydroxychloroquine conspiracy theories well into the election of November 2020. In particular, when Trump revealed his positive diagnosis, plenty of people were talking about Hydroxychloroquine at that point. That crap was disproved 5 months earlier, and plenty of people still didn't get the news.

...ok? Again, not the point being made by the article so not sure what point you're trying to make.

The article ignores useful treatments like Dexamethasone and monoclonal antibodies.

The correct skeptic was pro dexamethasone anti Hydroxychloroquine.

Seeing things from only an anti-htdroxychloroquine perspective is 100% misleading. There were working drugs that saved many lives during the stupid Hydroxychloroquine hype.

------

What timeframe are we talking about here? What else was known and tested? There is a political group who kept pushing HCQ for months, and then mislead the public again with Ivermectin a few months later.

Ivermectin was entirely a 2021 phenomenon as well. Not only did we know that Dexamethasone + Monoclonal antibodies worked, we also had 3 competing vaccines and the "Pfizer anti-viral pill". Why the hell were people talking about the snake-oil Ivermectin?

Re: Heuristics that almost always work

#520

Post by xboxnolifes »

kstenerud wrote: post #467

> The only problem is: he now provides literally no value. He’s excluded by fiat the possibility of ever being useful in any way. He could be losslessly replaced by a rock with the words “THERE ARE NO ROBBERS” on it. Not true. His value is in being there . He's not there to stop robbers, but rather to stop squatters or mischief makers who are looking for something to do (in which case there will be a lot more than ju…

> > Her heuristic is right 99.9% of the time, but she provides literally no value. There is no point to her existence. She could be profitably replaced with a rock saying “IT’S NOTHING, TAKE TWO ASPIRIN AND WAIT FOR IT TO GO AWAY”.

> Also not true. If there's a real problem, it won't go away and the patient will return, either with no improvement, or a worsening of symptoms.

You could still replace the first visit with a rock or automated response.

> > It cannot be denied that the employees he hires are very good. But when he dies, the coroner discovers that his head has a rock saying “HIRE PEOPLE FROM GOOD COLLEGES WITH LOTS OF EXPERIENCE” where his brain should be.

> But he hires good people for his company. So regardless of the soundness of his methods, he is providing value to that company.

He didn't provide any more value than a rock without a salary though.

Post reply on HN