Live data from Hacker News

Our Brain Uses Statistics to Calculate Confidence, Make Decisions

neuroscientistnews.com

101–110 of 113 posts

Re: Our Brain Uses Statistics to Calculate Confidence, Make Decisions

#101
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "valid"? If you mean "mathematically correct" then yes that is my premise. If you mean "correct in reality" then no. If you have a prior belief "god created humans" with a 99% confidence, it will take a lot of evidence to override that - especially since the evidence will be a long way down a causality chain (as any online argument about evolution will show). Additionally, the confidence in that b…

This thread could be summed up as "my priors tell me that if people were Actually Doing This (tm) it would look like X and it doesn't look like X, thus they aren't!" and then other people saying "uh, if you estimate the priors wrong that doesn't mean you aren't doing bayesian, it just means you estimated the priors wrong and got the wrong answer"

[deleted]

Re: Our Brain Uses Statistics to Calculate Confidence, Make Decisions

#102
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, the time that the prophecy of a teenage girl convinced a tribe of people in present-day South Africa to kill 300,000 - 400,000 of their own cattle, leading to the starvation and death of 20,000 - 40,000 people. How does a brain built on statistics decide that this is the most rational course of action? That's actually a really good example of statistics deciding a course of action. Ask yourself this? W…

> What shocked me was how many of these kids created internal narratives that they somehow caused the storm, or the storm was manifested as a personal lesson for them. Exactly. I would argue that internal narratives like this are inherently anti-statistical. They attempt to give greater meaning to something than the direct observations support. What experiment would convince you that statistics is not "the ultimate l…

> I would argue that internal narratives like this are inherently anti-statistical.

They're not. Those narratives are based on what they experienced. In this case, what they experienced are stories in the form of movies, TV, video games, anecdotes from peers, and Bible stories.

Now they didn't really experience them, but I'd posit the mechanisms in their mind really don't know the difference between what's real and what isn't. It doesn't matter if stories are real, all the matters is that they are the focal point of attention.

Think about it. The brain can very much be statistical, but the quality of the statistics is only as good as the data a brain is fed.

Re: Our Brain Uses Statistics to Calculate Confidence, Make Decisions

#103
Ok guys, time to weigh in. Of course we aren't trying to claim that all brain processing reduces to Bayes. Our claim is that we experience the statistical likelihood of our beliefs about our input data (from sense organs or from long-term memory retrieval) as a sense of confidence. If that sense is actually generated by a heuristic computation rather than a neural implementation of Bayes rule is almost irrelevant, because the end product looks identical to Bayes in the ways that matter for use of a confidence variable in computation. We work through the mathematics of how statistical confidence should appear in different projections of decision data here:

http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/01/01/017400.abstr...

(To appear in http://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/neco in the next month or so)

By necessity, we had to study decisions that could be replicated in a lab, so no mass-killings of cows. That being said, the brain is constantly faced with a statistical analysis problem - to figure out what's really happening outside of itself. A Bayesian machine is much more useful to assign a classification to sense data and compute its likelihood, than to determine whether your elders are correct when they insist that God is going to cause a plague in 2 years if we don't burn some bovines. Point being, the brain can construct and switch between (occasionally hilarious) decision making strategies depending on context - especially in the murkier, information-impoverished realm of social decision making.

Dealing with sense and memory data is a problem common to all animals, and evolution has had millions of generations to reject suboptimal processors. Processing language and abstract symbols to reinforce tribal social cohesion or implement a political agenda is a different category of decision that is newer in evolutionary terms, and definitely buggier. I hope this helps clear what we are and aren't claiming!

As an aside (since this is the right crowd!) we open-sourced the circuit design files, firmware and APIs for the real-time stimulus generator we used here:

https://github.com/sanworks/PulsePal

with documentation here:

https://sites.google.com/site/pulsepalwiki/home

and here:

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fneng.2014.00...

This system allowed us to shut off the ongoing audio click streams within 100 microseconds of a decision button press - so we could look backwards in time at the precise evidence stream used to make each choice and confidence report, for clues about what algorithm the brain used to process the streams. The follow-up study (under review) uses this data to evaluate different models of how decision and confidence computations are implemented in real-time.

Re: Our Brain Uses Statistics to Calculate Confidence, Make Decisions

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn. That's good counterpoints. Forgot about that. I shouldn't given I have to counter it all the time in risk management. Yeah, example might not work.

How are those counterpoints? None of the effects mentioned are rational statistically speaking. If anything they reinforce the example, because they show that some likely thought processes that would support belief in rainmaking are inherently anti-statistical.

You're assuming people are rational beings. Most evidence is to the contrary with beliefs passed down generations and many decisions intuitive with its mechanisms varying. There's also rational thought but makes up little of most people's day as intuition suffices. Also, there's documented biases in human mind that apply here:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_ris...

The one-off event of rain forming becomes the story that everyone remembers most and is passed down with dogma. It gets lots of momentum. Day-by-day data generated for years and analytically processed isn't quite memorable. This is same reason people are more afraid of airplanes despite cars killing more. More relevant, it's the same kinds of bias that makes people think they'll win it big in the lottery despite all evidence to the contrary. I've walked in on 50yd lines when PowerBall is up. They'll always say "But such and such up North won $100mil. You never know. It can't hurt to try."

Illogical as hell given that time and money could produce real benefit with high certainty. Yet, they continue doing it to try to re-create that one-off moment someone else experienced. And then someone else experienced it again. :)

Re: Our Brain Uses Statistics to Calculate Confidence, Make Decisions

#105
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "valid"? If you mean "mathematically correct" then yes that is my premise. If you mean "correct in reality" then no. If you have a prior belief "god created humans" with a 99% confidence, it will take a lot of evidence to override that - especially since the evidence will be a long way down a causality chain (as any online argument about evolution will show). Additionally, the confidence in that b…

This thread could be summed up as "my priors tell me that if people were Actually Doing This (tm) it would look like X and it doesn't look like X, thus they aren't!" and then other people saying "uh, if you estimate the priors wrong that doesn't mean you aren't doing bayesian, it just means you estimated the priors wrong and got the wrong answer"

Ha. In my opinion, you and others are treating the brain doing statistics like religious people treat the existence of God. Absolutely any evidence can be interpreted as support for the hypothesis if you just tell the right story about it.

I'm not even saying the hypothesis is necessarily false. However I will never trust the results of people who become so attached to an idea that they focus entirely on confirming it rather than rigorously testing whether it actually reflects reality.

Re: Our Brain Uses Statistics to Calculate Confidence, Make Decisions

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't take any single act, where something goes wrong, and conclude that they obviously made the irrational choice. Sometimes, you can make the correct decision and still have a bad outcome. If someone offers you even money that they can roll double sixes on a pair of dice, the rational and logical decision is to take the bet. The rationality of the decision doesn't change if they happen to roll double sixes, it…

> You can't take any single act, where something goes wrong, and conclude that they obviously made the irrational choice. Sure you can. If you flip a coin 1M times and it always comes up heads or tails, and then you bet $100 that the next flip will come up daisies, you can conclude that I obviously made the irrational choice. Because there is no evidence to support the idea that this will happen. Also, in your own ex…

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. I am not saying that you can't judge a single action as being irrational, I am saying that you can make the rational decision and still lose. Therefore, the mere fact that some action lead to a bad result is not sufficient to show that the decision was irrational.

Re: Our Brain Uses Statistics to Calculate Confidence, Make Decisions

#107
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human brains do statistics at a low level. This is what the experiment tested. An example experiment would be if you gave someone a rewards with different probabilities after some random event like clicking, and the brain would learn to estimate the probability that a sequence of clicks would lead to a reward. On a high level this obviously breaks down. The brain doesn't have thousands of examples of slaughtering cow…

This is actually completely incorrect. Many cognitive biases occur at low levels of cognition without involving language, take professional pilots and confirmation biases despite of a ton of training data.

I think professional pilots are still making mistakes at a higher level. By "low level" I mean things your brain does in a split second without thinking about.

Re: Our Brain Uses Statistics to Calculate Confidence, Make Decisions

#108
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The theory isn't that "statistics are the ultimate language of the brain". That's not the theory of this specific paper, but the says that this researcher considers this paper a "first step" towards this more general theory. > This theory is falsifiable, because you can ask people their confidence in the original measurements, their confidence in a decision depending on that, and then use Bayes' rule to see if thos…

If your standard is that humans will apply Bayes' theorem correctly, completely intuitively, as more evidence becomes available, I think it will be very easy to falsify that. Yes. And there is increasing evidence that this is correct. See[1]. If you can find a copy, I think [2] will address many of your concerns about seemingly irrational behavior being supported by statistical reasoning. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org…

I disagree. I think this is evidence to the contrary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf

Re: Our Brain Uses Statistics to Calculate Confidence, Make Decisions

#109
post #40
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are also applying a biased viewpoint. Your are assuming rational decision making always leads to "correct" decisions. Statistics and rationality merely work by measuring current events against your previous experiences and inferring the most probable outcome of your possible actions. That means that your previous life experiences and how you have interpreted and classified them are key in what your brain…

You'll need to explain what you mean by "correct" if "rational" isn't it. Rational decisions are those that maximize success, and if you've managed to find a rational decision that doesn't, it ceases to be rational given that information.

"Correct" ones would be those which actually maximize your outcome, while "rational" ones would be the ones are which you infer they will maximize your outcome from the information you have available.

Re: Our Brain Uses Statistics to Calculate Confidence, Make Decisions

#110
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are also applying a biased viewpoint. Your are assuming rational decision making always leads to "correct" decisions. Statistics and rationality merely work by measuring current events against your previous experiences and inferring the most probable outcome of your possible actions. That means that your previous life experiences and how you have interpreted and classified them are key in what your brain…

> Your are assuming rational decision making always leads to "correct" decisions. I didn't say anything of the sort. > The reality is that likely they are acting based on very different premises from your own, extracted from their own life experiences and those of their ancestors. That is true. That doesn't imply however that their beliefs draw solid statistical conclusion from those experiences. For example, take ri…

Am thinking of wearing your baseball hat backward or upside down when your team is behind. I know this does not actually help them win but it feels good to be part of the group doing it.

So we comply with the ritualistic behavior in a sort of group angst, when we win we feel it worked and when we loose we feel some sort of existential support system.

Post reply on HN