11–20 of 79 posts
I know this is not really the point of the article, but what language other than Afrikaans could Mandela and de Klerk have used? Xosha? I doubt de Klerk knew more than a few words of it at the time. Neither of the two spoke English natively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct, it's the expected number that is the same.
As I understand it, there is not enough information to determine the expected number of deaths. In the first situation, the expected number of deaths of choosing medicine A must be greater than or equal to 400k and in the second situation (again choosing medicine A) the expected number of deaths must be less than or equal to 400k. My interpretation was that in the first situation, there is a possibility that everyone…
Medicine A will always save 200,000 people, with 400,000 dying.
Medicine B will save all 600,000 people 33.3% of the time, but everyone will die 66% of the time.
The expected number of deaths (the 'expected value' in game theory) is the same for both cases (200,000). Medicine A is easy to calculate (200,000 * 1.00 = 200,000). For Medicine B, the calculation is 600,000 * 0.33 + 0 * 0.66 = 200,000.
The idea is that the average number of deaths is the same for both cases; you are just trading the certainty of Medicine A (where you know you will save exactly 200,000) vs the chance to save everyone, but the risk of losing everyone.
Not really relevant to the point of the article, but worth mentioning: The article's commentary on the _Asian Disease_ problem which states "the number of certain deaths is the same in both versions of the problem.." is incorrect. In case A, the number of certain deaths is 400,000, in case B it's 0. Or am I reading it incorrectly ?
Although I know there is a one-to-one mapping between meters and feet, I only grok a measurement given in meters.
There's probably some conditioning behind this: every day you are reminded that a pack of salami is 200g, while a pack of flour is 1kg, and so on ... so that for each measurement you just access your library of memories that relate the number to some previous experience.
Since a similar dictionary does not exist for the foreign units you learned in an artificial setting, and since your brain does not auto-update all your past memories based on the new info that 1m=3+3/8ft, you are left with words that are all understanding and no emotion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Release that anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Suffering leads to dark side. Dark side has cookies. Cookies lead to weight gain. Weight gain leads to unhappiness. Therefore anger leads to unhappiness. Trust me I'm a doctor[0]. [0] not really, but you should still trust me.
Cookies? I thought the dark side had pie. I was told there'd be pie.
It's disappointing. We all know these kinds of polls can be easily gamed by subtle (or not-so-subtle) phrasing, and without the questions actually used, I have no way of knowing if the "Foreign Language Effect" actually exists or if their choice of words in the translation affected the outcome.
[1] http://psychology.uchicago.edu/people/faculty/foreignLanguae...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I understand it, there is not enough information to determine the expected number of deaths. In the first situation, the expected number of deaths of choosing medicine A must be greater than or equal to 400k and in the second situation (again choosing medicine A) the expected number of deaths must be less than or equal to 400k. My interpretation was that in the first situation, there is a possibility that everyone…
I think you are misunderstanding. Medicine A will always save 200,000 people, with 400,000 dying. Medicine B will save all 600,000 people 33.3% of the time, but everyone will die 66% of the time. The expected number of deaths (the 'expected value' in game theory) is the same for both cases (200,000). Medicine A is easy to calculate (200,000 * 1.00 = 200,000). For Medicine B, the calculation is 600,000 * 0.33 + 0 * 0.…
"If you choose Medicine A, 400,000 people will die."
Tells you that 400k people will die if you choose medicine A. It says nothing about what will happen to the remaining 200k. I believe it is illogical to assume that the sentence implies the remaining 200k live. Note that if you were to ask me in real life, I'd probably be happy to make that assumption but that doesn't change the fact that it is an assumption based on missing information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct, it's the expected number that is the same.
As I understand it, there is not enough information to determine the expected number of deaths. In the first situation, the expected number of deaths of choosing medicine A must be greater than or equal to 400k and in the second situation (again choosing medicine A) the expected number of deaths must be less than or equal to 400k. My interpretation was that in the first situation, there is a possibility that everyone…
B: 1/3 probability of 600k cures, 2/3 probability of 0 cures; expected value = 200k survivors
Of course, as software writers, we have probably been trained to analyze algorithms for expected performance and for the best and worst cases. Real-time programmers should always choose option A, as it has the best worst-case performance. Some programmers will choose A because it has lower computational complexity. Others will choose option B because it has better best-case performance, and in the worst case is no worse than doing nothing at all.
The scenario is supposed to be mathematically ambiguous, but the people who designed it obviously did not consider factors beyond just the average case and whether the numbers are framed positively or negatively.
It's the same thing with foreign units of measurement (in, ft, F, stones, etc.). Although I know there is a one-to-one mapping between meters and feet, I only grok a measurement given in meters. There's probably some conditioning behind this: every day you are reminded that a pack of salami is 200g, while a pack of flour is 1kg, and so on ... so that for each measurement you just access your library of memories that…
I still don't get cups or the fluid measurements though, except that 12 oz a beer bottle and 16 oz is a medium soda bottle (medium in European terms).
It's the same thing with foreign units of measurement (in, ft, F, stones, etc.). Although I know there is a one-to-one mapping between meters and feet, I only grok a measurement given in meters. There's probably some conditioning behind this: every day you are reminded that a pack of salami is 200g, while a pack of flour is 1kg, and so on ... so that for each measurement you just access your library of memories that…
I know the feeling.