Categories
Uncategorized

An easy way to change your mind.

This idea is related to Tyler Cowen’s idea of ‘meta-rationality’ which you read about in this pay-what-you want pdf.

Perhaps there’s no better time to see, sort, and participate in over reactions than week one of the NFL. Though I only watch a full game or two a year, there are a lot of lessons from the likes of Mike Lombardi, Bill Belichick, and questions like, should running backs run the forty-yard-dash? (Narrators: meh).

So, after week one of the NFL, how much should someone change their mind?

There were two comments from Wharton Moneyball related this this exact question.

First, the hosts wondered why the small but powerful vitamin D study wasn’t getting more attention. Their guess was a combination of things including excessive dosing, strong priors, sample size, and general application (the participants were already hospitalized but went to the ICU at a much lower rate with treatment).

While people may have strong beliefs about the efficacy of vitamin D it doesn’t hurt to go for more walks, while the weather holds at least. Whether or not someone believes in vitamin D, walking can’t hurt.

Late in the episode, Cade Massey and Josh Hermsmeyer noted the impressive week one play of Gardner Minshew. While both are rooting for his success, there’s no ‘go-for-a-walk’ equivalent for updating beliefs. Base rates suggest we stay closer to home until Mr. Minshew racks up some road wins.

Lastly is this study about teacher expectations. “(U)nbiased (i.e., accurate) beliefs can be counterproductive if there are positive returns to optimism or if there are socio-demographic gaps in the degree of teachers’ over-optimism, both of which we find evidence of.” Want better results from students? Have higher expectations than the data suggests.

The easiest way to change your mind is to make changing your mind inexpensive.

The hardest way to change your mind is to attach ideas to yourself. Jason Zweig calls this thinking “identity protective cognition,” and said, “If you are not judging the validity of ideas by long-term, objective, peer-reviewed evidence then you are just protecting your own identity and it’s foolish.” 

If vitamin doesn’t affect covid health, it still doesn’t hurt. If high expectations don’t affect student results, it still doesn’t hurt. If extrapolation from week one of the NFL doesn’t predict season success it does hurt.

Related: Make small poker bets.

Categories
Uncategorized

Gambling with CoVid19

Bias warning, My wife and I can work from home, my kids kinda like homeschool (but really miss their friends) and I wiped down the groceries in the garage. 

It’s always helpful to ask, has someone faced my situation before? The answer is often yes. Rory Sutherland thrives at this.

On recent podcasts from Deep Dive (#249) and Wharton Moneyball (April 1, 2020) there were two very good steps to understanding anything with uncertainty.

Wharton Moneyball takes its name from Michael Lewis’s Moneyball. That book shed light on using advanced statistics to find other ways to win baseball games, that walking to first after a full count was actually better than hitting a single to first on the first pitched ball. Moneyball thinking has extended to new areas like basketball, movies, and Jeopardy.

On Wharton Moneyball, Adi Wyner spoke with Alan Salzberg who mentioned that he’s starting looking at CoVid19 deaths rather than cases. The former takes longer to materialize in number form but is better than the former which is mostly a product of testing. It’s trading a sampling error for a time lag.

“It was what we would generally call ‘garbage data’. A confirmed case  might me it was confirmed because someone came to the hospital and was already sick.” Alan Salzberg

Ok, good so far.

We need good data (walks instead of hits) but then Alan goes too far. The virus is mostly airborne and mostly won’t bother someone if it lands on a surface someone might touch and then finds a path into their body. That’s a lot of ifs. “Is that enough,” Salzberg wonders, “It stays for a little while, but in my mind I don’t think that should be a worry. I think you should wash your hands, and I’ve been doing that and I try not to touch my face a lot. But I think being ridiculously uptight about it is kind of crazy.”

Ok, that’s fine if we had better data.

But we don’t. Instead of six feet we might heed caution and stand at least twenty-seven feet apart. What’s the R0? How long is someone infected and asymptotic?

Ok, those are good questions.

There’s a lot of unknowns here and on Deep Dive, Matt (@PlusEVAnalytics) talked through what we can do when there are so many unknowns.

Think of Tom Brady’s 2020 over-under passing line of 4,256 passing yards, or 266 yards per game. His last four years totaled; 4057, 4355, 4577, and 3554. But with Tampa Bay he’s got better receivers. And he wants to prove to everyone that he’s still got it! And he wants to do it without Belichick!! Yeah!!!

But how much do those things count for? Like how much we know about CoVid19, we don’t know. Matt gives us a guide though. Do the things we don’t know make one outcome more likely? With age, ambiguity, competition, injury and so on, the unknown makes the under much more likely.

Matt credits much of this thinking to Taleb but the concept of sports and gambling make it clear. It seems like the unknown parts of the CoVid19 pandemic tilt the outcomes in favor of what’s much worse. Good data is a necessary start but ambiguity must be considered too.

Latest book: Idea Trails, 50 ideas from blogging the last four years.