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

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: Surprisingly popular

#51

Post by derefr »

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?

I'm not sure the algorithm would emit any answer in the case where everyone has an equal level of objective foundation for their subjective belief.

But it would probably help in cases where popular opinion is entirely misinformed about the subjective question, not having any basis other than (already misinformed) hearsay on which to form their own subjective opinion.

So, for example, if there was a musician who had an absolutely terrible song that somehow became the song they were best known for (being a "one-hit wonder" whose song wasn't really a "hit"), the public might believe that that song is their best song, since it's the only song of theirs the public has ever heard of. Experts (i.e. people who have heard more than the one song of theirs), on the other hand, would tend to agree that it's certainly not their best song.

(Given that example, I'm inclined to suggest that you could use this algorithm to determine when people are being judged overly-harshly for things, e.g. whether to ban someone from a website just because they've received a lot of reports about that person's behavior.)

Re: Surprisingly popular

#52

Post by bscphil »

carbocation wrote: post #34
tofof wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the wiki's sources might have been a better linked article. The MIT summary [1] notes "The researchers first derived their result mathematically, then assessed how it works in practice, through surveys spanning a range of subjects, including U.S. state capitols, general knowledge, medical diagnoses by dermatologists, and art auction estimates." Across all those areas, this technique had error rates about 20% l…

Awesome, thank you. And 'nacc found the link to the Nature article as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20547787

One interesting thing about the paper is that it seems that the Wikipedia article incorrectly describes the procedure: respondents were not asked to guess whether the majority would agree with their position. They were asked to guess what per cent of other respondents would agree. I think that's a pretty severe difference in the method.

Re: Surprisingly popular

#53

Post by fireattack »

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%…

No, his number is right.

It's not about what exactly the percentage flat-Earther would be (be it 1% or 0.1%), it's about which question has more "no" percentage.

And it should be Q2 because

Normal people will answer "No" to both questions.

Flat-Earther will answer "Yes" to the first question. Most of them would, however, answer "No" for the second, because they're well aware they are the minority on this topic (think "wake up sheeple!").

Re: Surprisingly popular

#54

Post by cecilpl2 »

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.

There are four groups of people:

A - "Philadelphia is the capital, and others will agree."

B - "Philadelphia is the capital, but most others won't know that".

C - "Harrisburg is the capital, and others will agree."

D - "Harrisburg is the capital, but most others won't know that."

This technique eliminates groups A and C from consideration, and measures the difference in size between groups B and D.

Both groups B and D think they know something other people don't, but B is wrong and D is right.

In cases where people feel like they have "inside" knowledge, generally speaking it's because they are correct and knowledgeable (group D), not because they are misled (group B).

You often arrive in group D by virtue of having been in group A and then learning the actual truth of the matter.

You can arrive in group B by falling prey to a conspiracy theory, which makes this technique perhaps invalid in such cases? I wouldn't be surprised if the question "Do vaccines cause autism?" had a surprisingly popular answer of "Yes".

Re: Surprisingly popular

#57

Post by jcl »

bengarvey wrote: post #5

Philadelphia should be the capital of Pennsylvania

It's a surprising pattern... Most U.S. state capitals are not their largest cities, and most large cities are not capitals. Phoenix is the only city in the top 10 that is also a capital.

Re: Surprisingly popular

#58

Post by benj111 »

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.

What about people who aren't sure?

If you give an answer but its a guess, you'd be less likely to say people agree with you.

Re: Surprisingly popular

#59

Post by whatshisface »

brownbat wrote: post #18
simias wrote: post #11

The way I understand it it's effectively it's a good way to identify trick questions and the people who correctly identify the "trick" (by saying that other people would fall for it and reply differently) are more likely to be right overall and it's reflected in the percentage difference. Wouldn't you get the same result simply by saying "let's just consider the answers from people who said others would respond diffe…

Yeah, it's a bit like "second order" wisdom of the crowds. First order: "How many jelly beans are in this jar?" Second order: "What percentage of people will get the wrong answer to this question about Pennsylvania's capital?" There's also the interplay with the Keynesian beauty contest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest In some sense the stock market is an infinite regress of these "what will ot…

Shares do actually have a fundamental value, based on their lifetime dividends, buybacks and liquidation. So unlike, say, Bitcoin or the Dollar, there is something to be gained from knowing the zeroth-order reality.

Re: Surprisingly popular

#60

Post by brankoB »

whatshisface wrote: post #59
brownbat wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's a bit like "second order" wisdom of the crowds. First order: "How many jelly beans are in this jar?" Second order: "What percentage of people will get the wrong answer to this question about Pennsylvania's capital?" There's also the interplay with the Keynesian beauty contest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest In some sense the stock market is an infinite regress of these "what will ot…

Shares do actually have a fundamental value, based on their lifetime dividends, buybacks and liquidation. So unlike, say, Bitcoin or the Dollar, there is something to be gained from knowing the zeroth-order reality.

Disagree. Think about what makes a share liquid: lots of potential buyers (i.e. people perceiving it as a safe investment).
Post reply on HN