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

Surprisingly popular

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 90 posts

Re: Surprisingly popular

#41

Post by cygx »

identity0 wrote: post #36
cygx wrote: post #17

Let's look at another toy example, using made-up numbers: Q: Is the earth flat? Yes: 10% No: 90% Q: What do you think most people will respond to that question? Yes: 3% No: 97% Analysis: Yes: 10% - 3% = 7% No: 90% - 97% = -7% Conclusion: The earth is flat, I guess ;)

A more realistic example of that would be: Q. Is the earth flat? Yes: 0.1% No: 99.9% Q: What do you think most people will respond to that question? Yes: 10% No: 90% Analysis: Yes: 0.1% - 10% = -9.9% No: 99.9% - 90% = 9.9% Conclusion: the earth is not flat. Not sure where you're getting the "10% believe the earth is flat" from, but if that's just your guess then it's pretty reasonable for people to say they think 10%…

If there are only 0.1% of flat earthers, why would 10% of people think it to be the most popular answer? That does not seem realistic at all.

Or did you interpret the question as suggested by bena in his sibling answer, ie as an estimate for the answer distribution (that would then have to be averaged) instead of a choice of the most popular answer (as was done in the wiki article)?

Re: Surprisingly popular

#42

Post by cygx »

Iv wrote: post #39
identity0 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more realistic example of that would be: Q. Is the earth flat? Yes: 0.1% No: 99.9% Q: What do you think most people will respond to that question? Yes: 10% No: 90% Analysis: Yes: 0.1% - 10% = -9.9% No: 99.9% - 90% = 9.9% Conclusion: the earth is not flat. Not sure where you're getting the "10% believe the earth is flat" from, but if that's just your guess then it's pretty reasonable for people to say they think 10%…

Works with creationism then. But, interestingly, there may be a symmetry between people who overestimate the amount of creationists and creationists who underestimate their numbers. So maybe that technique is actually valid. It spots an asymmetry in people who think the majority is wrong on something.

The second question does not ask for an estimate of prevalence, but to pick the answer you think most popular. You can over-estimate the amounts as much as you like as long as the majority choice remains the same, ie it would not matter whether you think there are 0.1% or 49.9% of creationists...

Re: Surprisingly popular

#44

Post by Grue3 »

cygx wrote: post #41
identity0 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more realistic example of that would be: Q. Is the earth flat? Yes: 0.1% No: 99.9% Q: What do you think most people will respond to that question? Yes: 10% No: 90% Analysis: Yes: 0.1% - 10% = -9.9% No: 99.9% - 90% = 9.9% Conclusion: the earth is not flat. Not sure where you're getting the "10% believe the earth is flat" from, but if that's just your guess then it's pretty reasonable for people to say they think 10%…

If there are only 0.1% of flat earthers, why would 10% of people think it to be the most popular answer? That does not seem realistic at all. Or did you interpret the question as suggested by bena in his sibling answer, ie as an estimate for the answer distribution (that would then have to be averaged) instead of a choice of the most popular answer (as was done in the wiki article)?

>That does not seem realistic at all.

That does seem realistic considering how often the topic pf flat-earthers comes up in discussions on social media, despite it being an extremely niche view.

Re: Surprisingly popular

#45

Post by asark »

powrtoch wrote: post #43

Using this on subjective questions (e.g. “Is Cymbeline one of Shakespeare’s best plays?”) would help you find... what? Underrated things?

The example uses it to spot a case where most people are wrong, but some large minority of people expect that most people will answer incorrectly, while themselves answering correctly. A large enough difference (10%, in the example case) between the "what do you guess others will answer?" and what people actually answered indicates the majority opinion is, in fact, wrong.

Re: Surprisingly popular

#46

Post by cygx »

Grue3 wrote: post #44
cygx wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are only 0.1% of flat earthers, why would 10% of people think it to be the most popular answer? That does not seem realistic at all. Or did you interpret the question as suggested by bena in his sibling answer, ie as an estimate for the answer distribution (that would then have to be averaged) instead of a choice of the most popular answer (as was done in the wiki article)?

>That does not seem realistic at all. That does seem realistic considering how often the topic pf flat-earthers comes up in discussions on social media, despite it being an extremely niche view.

OP suggested that 10% of people think there are more than 50% of flat-earthers when the real number is 0.1%. Phrased another way, 10% of people expect half the people they meet will be flat-earthers when it's 1 in 1000.

Doesn't seem realistic to me.

Re: Surprisingly popular

#47

Post by bscphil »

cygx wrote: post #17

Let's look at another toy example, using made-up numbers: Q: Is the earth flat? Yes: 10% No: 90% Q: What do you think most people will respond to that question? Yes: 3% No: 97% Analysis: Yes: 10% - 3% = 7% No: 90% - 97% = -7% Conclusion: The earth is flat, I guess ;)

I would argue that the test is non-informative for controversial questions of any kind. These are cases where

* each side believes that those who disagree are wrong, not just mistaken in their remembrance of a fact.

* each side is well-informed about which view is more popular

The fact that everyone is willing to stick to their answer despite everyone knowing what "most people" think means that an answer's being surprisingly popular doesn't bear either way on its being right. The test is ideal for simple questions of fact which are not disputed.

Re: Surprisingly popular

#48

Post by jefftk »

tofof wrote: post #10
Noumenon72 wrote: post #2

The capital is not Philadelphia, it's Harrisburg. So the idea must be that most people think they are right and others will agree with them, but there are people who get it right and know that others get it wrong, and they are responsible for the difference in scores.

That is indeed exactly the underpinning of the technique, not that you can tell from the wiki article.

For what it's worth I found the Wikipedia article clearer.

Re: Surprisingly popular

#49

Post by Redoubts »

identity0 wrote: post #36
cygx wrote: post #17

Let's look at another toy example, using made-up numbers: Q: Is the earth flat? Yes: 10% No: 90% Q: What do you think most people will respond to that question? Yes: 3% No: 97% Analysis: Yes: 10% - 3% = 7% No: 90% - 97% = -7% Conclusion: The earth is flat, I guess ;)

A more realistic example of that would be: Q. Is the earth flat? Yes: 0.1% No: 99.9% Q: What do you think most people will respond to that question? Yes: 10% No: 90% Analysis: Yes: 0.1% - 10% = -9.9% No: 99.9% - 90% = 9.9% Conclusion: the earth is not flat. Not sure where you're getting the "10% believe the earth is flat" from, but if that's just your guess then it's pretty reasonable for people to say they think 10%…

> Not sure where you're getting the "10% believe the earth is flat" from,

I think OKCupid got numbers like this for the question, or something like "is the Earth bigger than the Sun". To which I attribute to the smartass constant -- or rather that dumb questions elicit dumb responses.

Post reply on HN