The notion of “probability” is both familiar (we use it), and mysterious (we would typically struggle to define it).
Here is a 🧵 to remove the mystery and make the meaning of “probability” more intuitive.
When probability is taught in school, a random device, e.g. a 🎲, is usually used as an illustration. We are typically told that the probability of an event is the average frequency this event will be observed if we use this device repeatedly.
So the probability of getting a 6 on a 🎲 is 1/6 because if you throw a die many times, on average you will observe “6” one time out of 6.
It is a “frequentist” definition.
Because this probability is determined by the geometric properties of the die (its symmetries), it may seem that this probability is “objective”, a property of the die.
Probabilities have been seen by some as objective properties of the events considered. Here is Charles Pierce (1910) describing it as a property of the die.
But this view makes it hard to talk of the probability of a single event which won’t be repeated. Like:
“What is the probability Biden will win the midterm elections?”
Following that view, von Mises (1928) considered impossible to talk of the probability of a single event.
Another problem is that you can’t talk of events which have already been determined but are not known. This issue was the motivation behind this poll:
And if the world is determinist, then all events are already determined and the notion of probability does not make sense.
One solution is to not think of probability as objective but as subjective: a *measure* of our uncertainty.
I toss a coin: I saw it landed on Heads. I 100% know it is Heads. You did not see it, you think it is 50%.
Same event, different probability, due to different information.
Measures are things like:
length (measure of distance)
area (measure of surface size),
volume (measure of space size),
weight (measure of heaviness). Probability can be seen as a measure of uncertainty.
In what sense is it really a measure like the other ones? Measures can be defined by a set of mathematical properties. For instance the measure of the length of the sum of two separate segments is the sum of their length.
Kolmogorov (1933) defined such principles for probability to be a measure. For instance the probability of the union of two exclusive events is the sum of the events probability.
(E.g., the probability to get either 5 or 6 on a die is 1/6+1/6=2/6.)
But you’d be entitled to be sceptic. Length, area, volume, weight are things which can be measured objectively (e.g. using a ruler, a scale). How can we “measure” your uncertainty?
Well you can! Savage (1954) showed that if you follow a few principles of rationality, you act as if you have beliefs which are a probability measure. So we can “measure” your perceived probability by looking at your choices.
For instance, consider the bet: You get $100 if “Biden will win the midterm elections” and $0 otherwise.
If you would be willing to pay $20 to play this bet (and no more), then your subjective probability for Biden’s victory is 20%.
(Assuming you are risk neutral for simplicity)
So amazingly probabilities can be measured!
If you follow Savage’s principles, that is… In fact most people don’t. Even Savage was found violating them. 😬
Nonetheless, for those following Savage’s principles, probabilities can be measured. For the others, decision theorists have designed alternative methods to retrieve subjective probabilities behind people’s choices.
Noticeably, if our subjective probabilities respect Kolmogorov’s principles, they also respect Bayes’ rule. Nowadays scientists tend to share a “Bayesian” view on probability as subjective and reflecting the weight of our evidence.
So to go back to the question in the poll. As a few responses pointed out, both answers are valid depending on one’s perspective. From an objective perspective, the one you would know everything, the coin is either H for sure or T for sure.
But for you, both are 1/2 probability.
Even though we talk of probabilities as if they are the property of outside events, they are really a reflection of what is inside our head.
End/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Discussions on the award of the Nobel Prize in economics to Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson have often focused on their empirical papers on economic growth.
A🧵 to point to the big picture: how they transformed the discipline.
It is easy, particularly for younger generations, to underestimate how transformational the AJR research program has been. Step back 25 years, and the economic discipline was still very traditional in how it viewed the economy.
The mechanisms economists could investigate to study growth were primarily the accumulation of factors of production: labour, capital, human capital, plus some not well-understood factors like technological efficiency.
What is depression, and why does it exist?
In spite of its prevalence, depression and the factors causing it are still not well understood. A 🧵on how an adaptive approach to cognition can help us gain a better understanding of depression. optimallyirrational.com/p/depression
Happy and unhappy feelings can be seen as meant to help us make good decisions.👇
However, depression is characterised by a lack of motivation to engage with the outside world and a reluctance to take action. How can this be helpful in making decisions? optimallyirrational.com/p/the-truth-ab…
To understand depression, we need to understand moods. Moods are lasting positive or negative feelings. What's the point of having moods?
@RandyNesse made the point that moods can be understood as signals for the value of the situations we are in.
Kahneman said: “The concept of loss aversion is certainly the most significant contribution of psychology to behavioral economics.”
In a new paper @kubitzg1 and I propose an explanation for it, as a feature of our cognition that helps us make good decisions.
Loss aversion is the fact that, subjectively, losing feels worse than winning feels good. The idea has been expressed throughout human history. It can be found, for instance, in Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments:
Loss aversion is one of the three pillars of Kahneman and Tversky's Prospect Theory which posits that subjective satisfaction is relative to a reference point. Outcomes above our reference point feel like gains and outcomes below feel like losses.
Because talking to each other seems easy to us, we typically underappreciate the amazing cognitive feats we achieve in our everyday conversations. A 🧵
While computers are extremely good at tasks humans find hard, like making complex calculations, they have struggled with tasks that humans find almost trivially easy, like language. It is part of the "Moravec paradox".
Our everyday communications may seem simple, but underneath, they are shaped by deep principles of cooperation that determine what we say and how we say it.
We frequently lament the lack of quality information in the media. Yet, as consumers, we often seek not what's most accurate, but what aligns with our views. This shifts the information marketplace into a "marketplace of rationalisations". A🧵
Concerns about the media aren't new. In the 20th century, intellectuals voiced worries about corporate mass media indoctrinating and dumbing down the public in ways that favoured the status quo of the political and economic order.
With the advent of the internet, there was hope for a decentralised public sphere, rich in idea exchange. But reality diverged from this ideal marketplace of ideas. Instead, concerns have risen about people increasingly being influenced by unreliable information.
Why hasn't the Internet worked as a great public space where the best ideas win? Perhaps because it isn't how debates operate. Behind intellectual arguments, people aren't impartial thinkers; they advocate for their team.
A🧵on how coalitional thinking shapes our discussions.
Introductory example. When a Hayek citation criticising men's overconfidence was shared on a libertarian website, it was very poorly received. Ironically, the quote was from Hayek, the free-market economist. Who "said" it greatly influenced how the quote was perceived.
John Tooby--who recently passed away--and his wife Leda Cosmides, founded an influential school of evolutionary psychology. In a 2010 article, they highlighted the importance of our "coalitional psychology," that guides us in navigating ingroup cooperation & outgroup competition.