Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Be Wrong (2016)

mathenchant.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 35 posts

Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)

#11

Post by WilliamEdward »

Zrdr wrote: post #8
kranner wrote: post #3

vos Savant's article on this that lists highlights from the letters: http://marilynvossavant.com/game-show-problem/

The Monty Hall problem, as it is initially stated by vos Savant (and even in this link) is not well written. It make implicit assumptions about the host behavior. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Other_host_... If this had been clear from the beginning, there would not have been so much confusion about this problem. So in this case, vos Savant is also quite "wrong".

It really irks me that the original reader asked the question, stated that the host knew what was behind the doors, but didn't state any rules to the gameshow whatsoever. Savant basically made up the entirety of the question herself.

This whole section of history should just be erased because of how much controversy it caused without any serious progression.

Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)

#12

Post by ghusbands »

yesenadam wrote: post #5

Wow, I liked it (although none of the Monty Hall story was new to me) until the part where he was disgustingly dismissive and insulting to Semmelweis. Then I stopped reading. A less sympathetic account can hardly be imagined, I thought it was shameful.

It clearly assumes that the reader is aware of the background and simply states that it is "conceivable" that Semmelweis' attitude (whether warranted or not) may have negatively impacted his message. It seems like a sound point; that sort of thing does unfortunately happen.

Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)

#13

Post by yesenadam »

ghusbands wrote: post #12
yesenadam wrote: post #5

Wow, I liked it (although none of the Monty Hall story was new to me) until the part where he was disgustingly dismissive and insulting to Semmelweis. Then I stopped reading. A less sympathetic account can hardly be imagined, I thought it was shameful.

It clearly assumes that the reader is aware of the background and simply states that it is "conceivable" that Semmelweis' attitude (whether warranted or not) may have negatively impacted his message. It seems like a sound point; that sort of thing does unfortunately happen.

Semmelweis "the medical pioneer whose unyielding adherence to principles of hygiene may have been responsible for the deaths of millions. Sure, he saved lots of people, but it’s conceivable that the practice of routine hand-washing in surgical theatres might have spread farther, and faster, if the man had never been born (and therefore never antagonized so much of the medical establishment with his rigidity and brusqueness, and therefore never put hand-washing in such bad odor)."

I don't think that saying the writer here 'simply states that it is "conceivable" that Semmelweis' attitude (whether warranted or not) may have negatively impacted his message' is a reasonable interpretation of that passage, to say the least. (I also can't see that it "clearly assumes" what you say it does. You probably wouldn't link to the guy's wikipedia page if you assume people know not only who he is but the background too)

What was his 'attitude'? It drove him nuts that no-one would listen?

Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)

#14

Post by jjjensen90 »

WilliamEdward wrote: post #7
theaeolist wrote: post #4

As a CS university lecturer, I acknowledge that there is little room for exploration, and the chance of being wrong, in most assessment schemes. Any mistake loses points and lowers the GPA, so nobody likes to make mistakes, however creative and interesting. Shame. The system cannot be easily revised because the students themselves oppose it. To them it seems intuitively unfair that somehow those who make mistakes may…

You didn't read their first point - if you're going to be wrong, do so in private. You should be making as many mistakes as possible at home or after hours so that by class or test time you never make them again. Mistakes are a way of learning but not a way of doing. After all, the entirety of life was built with 1 tool - the mistake.

Wait a minute, mistakes are a "way of learning" but you should avoid them in school?

Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)

#15

Post by ggm »

yesenadam wrote: post #13
ghusbands wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It clearly assumes that the reader is aware of the background and simply states that it is "conceivable" that Semmelweis' attitude (whether warranted or not) may have negatively impacted his message. It seems like a sound point; that sort of thing does unfortunately happen.

Semmelweis "the medical pioneer whose unyielding adherence to principles of hygiene may have been responsible for the deaths of millions. Sure, he saved lots of people, but it’s conceivable that the practice of routine hand-washing in surgical theatres might have spread farther, and faster, if the man had never been born (and therefore never antagonized so much of the medical establishment with his rigidity and brusq…

A professor at a university I worked at, had such antipathy for the computer centre director who had a personal chair for his non-teaching role, that we were under standing instructions to vote against anything he suggested at a departmental meeting. Yet, both had to agree on significant computing spend for the university. Net result? lose-lose outcomes...

Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)

#16

Post by jonathanstrange »

Oh man, I'm always glad to hear I'm not the only one who got the Monty Hall problem wrong. Here is my embarrassing MH story.

Like Paul Erdős, I resorted to experimentation. Very much unlike Paul Erdős the computer program I wrote contained a one-off error in its PRNG that coincidentally confirmed the wrong result. I then spent a day or so on Usenet insisting stubbornly on the wrong solution until some very kind person on sci.crypt made a complete truth table as a proof. That exhaustive proof immediately convinced me of my idiocy.

Lesson: If a bunch of smart and educated people tell you that you're wrong, then you're probably wrong.

Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)

#17

Post by coldtea »

>Sometimes something even simpler than the “I used to think so too but now I know better” criterion can be used to unmask bunk; if there’s a good story and one that’s disappointingly banal, usually the latter is the one that’s unfortunately true.

A problem with this is that there are now increasingly more people who automatically opt for the "disappointingly banal" story even in cases when the good story is the actually true one (and insist on it) -- because it enables them to take pride in "debunking" and feel superior to others.

In other words, where once most people went for the "good story" for psychological reasons (because it's more satisfying, makes for interesting talk, etc), now, with the raise of sites like Snopes, "fact-checking" forums, sceptic sites, and so on, there's an increasing equally bogus motive for preferring the banal story.

(And this is orthogonal to Occam's razor. For one, because the banal and the interesting story might be of equal simplicity and with equally few prerequisites. Beside's Occam's razor is just an observation, not an absolute law: sometimes the more elaborate course is indeed what happened).

Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)

#18

Post by delinka »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #16

Oh man, I'm always glad to hear I'm not the only one who got the Monty Hall problem wrong. Here is my embarrassing MH story. Like Paul Erdős, I resorted to experimentation. Very much unlike Paul Erdős the computer program I wrote contained a one-off error in its PRNG that coincidentally confirmed the wrong result. I then spent a day or so on Usenet insisting stubbornly on the wrong solution until some very kind perso…

“If a bunch of smart and educated people...”

Well, you do have to first recognize that the particular bunch is composed of smart and educated people...

Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)

#19

Post by WilliamEdward »

jjjensen90 wrote: post #14
WilliamEdward wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't read their first point - if you're going to be wrong, do so in private. You should be making as many mistakes as possible at home or after hours so that by class or test time you never make them again. Mistakes are a way of learning but not a way of doing. After all, the entirety of life was built with 1 tool - the mistake.

Wait a minute, mistakes are a "way of learning" but you should avoid them in school?

You should avoid them when trying to produce actual good work and results, obviously. Before that point, make as many as you want so you can learn how to produce flawless results.

Re: How to Be Wrong (2016)

#20

Post by WilliamEdward »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #16

Oh man, I'm always glad to hear I'm not the only one who got the Monty Hall problem wrong. Here is my embarrassing MH story. Like Paul Erdős, I resorted to experimentation. Very much unlike Paul Erdős the computer program I wrote contained a one-off error in its PRNG that coincidentally confirmed the wrong result. I then spent a day or so on Usenet insisting stubbornly on the wrong solution until some very kind perso…

The thing is that the person who got it right was not a researcher while all those that got it wrong were.

Either way, you should never feel bad about getting the monty hall problem wrong because it was never set up as a fair question. Marilyn Savant made some incredible assumptions about the premise of the question that were never clear and thus almost completely made up the question herself.

Post reply on HN