Talk:Bayesian reasoning: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "Create on this page: The Monty Hall problem - how opening another door does not change the overall risk situation but just changes the probability of one door to one or zero. How you could get the same effect by having two doors and revealing one. Why human cognitive biases make us naturally bad at bayesian reasoning: anchoring effect, confirmation bias and so on . Bayesian reasoning as a way of explaining super forecasting (in terms of updating prior probabilities) T..." Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Why human cognitive biases make us naturally bad at bayesian reasoning: anchoring effect, confirmation bias and so on . | Why human cognitive biases make us naturally bad at bayesian reasoning: anchoring effect, confirmation bias and so on . | ||
Bayesian reasoning as a way of explaining super forecasting (in terms of updating prior probabilities) | Bayesian reasoning as a way of explaining super forecasting (in terms of updating prior probabilities) | ||
The limits of Bayesian reasoning | The limits of Bayesian reasoning. | ||
SBF on shakespeare | |||
Bayesian reasoning applied to the Bayesian. | Bayesian reasoning applied to the Bayesian. | ||
{{Monty Holdem poker}} | |||
{{Nld}} |
Latest revision as of 10:00, 27 September 2024
Create on this page:
The Monty Hall problem - how opening another door does not change the overall risk situation but just changes the probability of one door to one or zero. How you could get the same effect by having two doors and revealing one. Why human cognitive biases make us naturally bad at bayesian reasoning: anchoring effect, confirmation bias and so on . Bayesian reasoning as a way of explaining super forecasting (in terms of updating prior probabilities) The limits of Bayesian reasoning. SBF on shakespeare Bayesian reasoning applied to the Bayesian.
Here is a card game. The deck has just three cards: two clubs and a heart. The object of the game is to end up with the heart.
The dealer shuffles and deals the three cards face down on the table, in the “river”. The player chooses one card from the river, but it stays face down. The dealer turns one of the remaining cards in the river, to reveal a club.
The player now has the choice to stay with her original card, or switch it for the remaining face-down card in the river.
What should the player do? Stick, or twist?