Someone tosses a coin ten times; it comes up heads every time. What's the probability it comes up heads on the next toss? (Pretty darn high—part of @nntaleb's work is unprogramming you from your high-school rules of thumb.) Now consider the (related) Gambler's fallacy...

In this case, it's a theory about compensation: the worse one's luck is, the more likely it is to see a reversal. On the surface, it's irrational. The more bad luck you have, the more you accumulate evidence that the system is rigged.
But there's also an anthropic component. If the luck is bad enough, it starts to become inconsistent with your survival. You've accumulated evidence for correlations in the environment, but these correlations (may be) inconsistent with (people like you) being in this environment.
An example. You're in a city where everyone takes public transport. You encounter a string of bad delays. It's reasonable to conclude they'll end—otherwise people wouldn't take public transport. It's unlikely that you happened to show up right when the network collapses.
Of course, that's a bad heuristic in a casino, which relies on a constant influx of losers. But in other environments, particularly with persistent populations and no evidence for sudden changes in the underlying laws, it makes sense.
Another example: the three-card monte scam in a big city. You meet some guys on the corner, who convince you to go in on the game. You win, a few times. The more you win, the more you ought to be convinced that your luck will turn. Otherwise, how are these guys there?
(In this case, the anthropic reasoning concerns the scamsters—it's unlikely that you showed up right when their operation starts to fall apart.)
The general principle, which again is due to @nntaleb, is a new kind of failure. The "IYI", intellectual-yet-idiot. IMO, this is driven by standardized testing—we started to promote people on the basis of their ability to internalize fake-but-difficult-to-master rules...
In a previous cycle, the British ran their empire by fast-tracking twelve year olds who could master Latin grammar. The ambiguities of interpretation make this a much better idea than the SAT version, where one learns more abstract "grammars"—e.g., integration by parts.
Everything can be degraded, of course. When I give CMU students the coin-toss problem, it's usually unfamiliar enough that they're thrown back on a more complex, and life-integrated, form of reasoning. But ask that question enough, and tutors will arise to teach the solution...
...which negates the original value of the puzzle. (BTW, nearly all the students "get it", which bodes well for our future engineers.)
A final thought on this, before I get back to my real work. If you pose this kind of problem as a teacher, there's a second level to what's going on: your students are also modeling you! (and your class.)
i.e., they're asking themselves—is this a class where we're all living in la-la land, or is there some substance here, some connection to our own lived experience?
So, yes, I'm proud that most of my students get it. :)
This is lovely—yes! "I can't be the only idiot" summarizes why we keep waiting for the train with rising hope. https://t.co/s3d4aFg7Tv
You might also connect it to the bulk-vs-long-tail. "I'm not the only idiot" is true when there are repeated tests of the system of similar magnitude.
OK, truly one last thought. A scam is more likely to succeed if you're doing something new, but can convince people you've always been around, that this is "normal". Certainly psychologically obvious, but it's fun to look at it from the point of view of rational analysis.
(In the case where the scam operates by inducing the Concorde/sunk-cost fallacy—slowly extracting money from the person, who continues to believe in a final payoff.)

More from Simon DeDeo

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?

More from Crypto

You May Also Like

This thread will debunk "the judges didn't look at evidence" nonsense that has been going around.

Over and over again, judges have gone out of their way to listen to the evidence and dismantle it, enjoy the carnage!

1/

Bowyer v. Ducey (Sidney Powell's case in Arizona)

"Plaintiffs have not moved the
needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible"

This is a great opinion to start with. The Judge completely dismantles the nonsense brought before her.

2/

https://t.co/F2vllUhM2G


King vs. Whitmer (Michigan, Sidney Powell case)

"Nothing but speculation and conjecture"

This is a good one to show people who think affidavits are good evidence. Notice how the affidavits don't actually say they saw fraud happen in Detroit.

3/

https://t.co/NZAtqivWkL


Trump v. Benson (Michigan)

"hearsay within hearsay"

Another good one to show people who think affidavits are absolute proof.

4/

https://t.co/17GeGhImHF


Stoddard v. City Election Commission (Michigan)

"mere speculation"

/5

https://t.co/ekqYEqiIL9
global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R
And here they are...

THE WINNERS OF THE 24 HOUR STARTUP CHALLENGE

Remember, this money is just fun. If you launched a product (or even attempted a launch) - you did something worth MUCH more than $1,000.

#24hrstartup

The winners 👇

#10

Lattes For Change - Skip a latte and save a life.

https://t.co/M75RAirZzs

@frantzfries built a platform where you can see how skipping your morning latte could do for the world.

A great product for a great cause.

Congrats Chris on winning $250!


#9

Instaland - Create amazing landing pages for your followers.

https://t.co/5KkveJTAsy

A team project! @bpmct and @BaileyPumfleet built a tool for social media influencers to create simple "swipe up" landing pages for followers.

Really impressive for 24 hours. Congrats!


#8

SayHenlo - Chat without distractions

https://t.co/og0B7gmkW6

Built by @DaltonEdwards, it's a platform for combatting conversation overload. This product was also coded exclusively from an iPad 😲

Dalton is a beast. I'm so excited he placed in the top 10.


#7

CoderStory - Learn to code from developers across the globe!

https://t.co/86Ay6nF4AY

Built by @jesswallaceuk, the project is focused on highlighting the experience of developers and people learning to code.

I wish this existed when I learned to code! Congrats on $250!!