meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 3 months |
| seen | Mar 26 at 2:49 | |
| stats | profile views | 5 |
|
Feb 1 |
accepted | Problem understanding the calculation of normative (Bayesian) base rates |
|
Aug 6 |
revised |
Problem understanding the calculation of normative (Bayesian) base rates added 56 characters in body |
|
Aug 6 |
asked | Problem understanding the calculation of normative (Bayesian) base rates |
|
Aug 6 |
accepted | Who first used the term 'heuristic' in a cognitive science context? |
|
Jul 24 |
asked | Who first used the term 'heuristic' in a cognitive science context? |
|
Jun 19 |
accepted | Appropriate metric(s) for quantifying the accuracy gain obtained from averaging dyads of estimates instead of adopting individual estimates? |
|
Jun 19 |
comment |
Appropriate metric(s) for quantifying the accuracy gain obtained from averaging dyads of estimates instead of adopting individual estimates? @ArtemKaznatcheev Thanks for the suggestion, but the final paragraph of my question does talk about averaging estimates within individuals. |
|
Jun 19 |
comment |
Appropriate metric(s) for quantifying the accuracy gain obtained from averaging dyads of estimates instead of adopting individual estimates? @JeromyAnglim I understand now, and your suggestion to calculate improvement after averaging across individuals fits well with my expectations when I asked the question. Thanks! |
|
Jun 19 |
revised |
Appropriate metric(s) for quantifying the accuracy gain obtained from averaging dyads of estimates instead of adopting individual estimates? edited body |
|
Jun 19 |
comment |
Appropriate metric(s) for quantifying the accuracy gain obtained from averaging dyads of estimates instead of adopting individual estimates? What you've written makes a great deal of sense, and it coheres with advice I've received in an offline conversation with another quantitatively-minded academic. One issue, though, is that in my data the coexistence of two reasonable and complementary representations leads to a situation in which according to one representation estimates obtained by averaging across individuals are superior to those obtained by averaging multiple guesses within individuals, while according to the other representation they are (disastrously) worse. Do you have any ideas how I might resolve this problem? |
|
Jun 18 |
asked | Appropriate metric(s) for quantifying the accuracy gain obtained from averaging dyads of estimates instead of adopting individual estimates? |
|
Feb 16 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Feb 16 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Feb 16 |
accepted | What causes systematic under- or over-estimation of general knowledge quantities? |
|
Feb 16 |
comment |
What causes systematic under- or over-estimation of general knowledge quantities? Thanks, I can see how the anchoring heuristic would be relevant, and you explain very clearly why this might be. Might other heuristics also be relevant? In relation to the Availability Heuristic we might ask for an estimate of the weight of the average American and find the answer is biased upward by the many cultural depictions of overweight Americans which readily come to mind. |
|
Feb 15 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Feb 15 |
revised |
What causes systematic under- or over-estimation of general knowledge quantities? added 175 characters in body |
|
Feb 15 |
awarded | Student |
|
Feb 15 |
asked | What causes systematic under- or over-estimation of general knowledge quantities? |
