Updating comment matthew updating ago day
I replied: Nate puts himself out there so it’s only fair that he gets criticized, but really I think the problem of updating priors given data is super-tough, and it’s easy to make mistakes.Is there any work in cognitive psychology on the rate at which people incorporate new information?I think it’s fair to say that right now the consensus among elite observers across the ideological spectrum . Given how hard it is to do this sort of information updating even in controlled settings such as sports, it’s no surprise that pundits, data journalists, and political scientists can have difficulty integrating new information with elections, where the N is lower and the rules of the game keep changing. is that the presidential race is over because Donald Trump has no chance of winning — or rather his chances of winning are so slim that they can be treated as functionally zero for all practical purposes. The betting markets, in which people put their money where there the mouths are, aren’t as bullish, but they still give Trump a one in ten chance. From the perspective of the judgment and decision making literature, the challenge is integrating new information at the appropriate rate: not so fast that your predictions jump up and down like a yo-yo (the fate of naive poll-watchers) and not so slow that you’re glued to your prior information (as happened with the prediction markets leading up to Brexit).
On one hand, try to use your best judgment and you find yourself subject to all sorts of cognitive biases and perverse incentives (such as Nate not wanting to underestimate Trump twice, or Nate underreacting to polls in part in reaction to earlier criticism that he was overreacting to polls).
The CAR-T treatment that was targeting the CD-22 protein on my cancer cells here in Maryland at the NIH sadly didn’t work. Soon, we’ll hopefully be off of this ride and never get back on it again!