Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Talk about a rock and a hard place...if I have to make a choice between "Can we put a limit on posts...like 45-80 words" (Tampabay) and MJG I'll go with MJG.
"Girotto says that people’s problems estimating probabilities may have to do with how uncertainty is expressed. "
I'm not sure that these studies are showing much beyond people having a sense of "likelihood"; not necessarily demonstrating ability to quantify or compare. The studies could just be showing that everything is in how the "uncertainty is expressed".
Here's an example of how framing the same problem different ways can lead people to different conclusions:
A probability puzzle I'm fond of goes: You have three hats, each contains two balls. One has two white balls, one has two red balls, one has a red and a white ball.
I draw a ball at random.
Version 1 (the puzzle's formulation): The ball I drew was white. What are the odds of the other ball in the hat being white?
Version 2 (embeds the correct analysis within the question): What are the odds of the other ball in the hat being the same color?
Phrased the first way, many people will think: it couldn't be the red/red hat. So of the remaining hats, there's a 50/50 chance that the white/white hat was chosen; the odds must be 50%.
Phrased the second way, it is apparent that 2/3 of the hats have balls of the same color, so the odds of the second ball being the same color as the first is 2/3. That's the correct answer. (White or red doesn't matter.)
Well, it's an exact quote, but the grammar doesn't lend itself to clarity, does it? Evidently he means an 80 word limit on posts, as he can't handle more than that.
""Can we put a limit on posts...like 45-80 words or whoever can put me in La La land first. I would say put me to "sleep"..."
It always puzzles me why a small group of MFO members take issue with my postings that advocate a more complete set of math tools to aid the investment decision making process. Why?
The group quibbles over non sequitur elements and rambles over unrelated personal assertions. Since they reference my posts, I guess they read them, and I suppose they fear their impact. That's too bad, but I believe MFO is designed as a forum to express alternate investment viewpoints and how to improve investment decision-making. It is not a playful chat room; it is serious stuff.
Please take note of who initiated the disparaging commentary. For the record, I must reply.
The overall commentary is like a scatter gun blast; it's totally unfocused, but wildly directed at post word length, on marriage partners, and on Monte Carlo analysis. I'll address each sequentially.
Developing a position on any matter requires several minimum components: why it is an issue, some historical context, a few candidate approaches, supporting data, reliable references, and conclusions. That's a tough assignment if an arbitrary, highly constrained word limit is enforced. Please note that the MFO monthly Commentary does not surrender to a word limit and is better for not imposing one. A word limitation is an unnecessary regulation. A solution is simple if a member feels that a post is boring.
The Mayan culture is surely not the American culture. The photo of the Maya grandmother and child is charming. She is a beautiful woman who seems happy after what is likely an arduous lifetime. Good for her. I married a beautiful and smart Oklahoma woman. I chose wisely. Good for me; good for her. If by happenstance we ever meet, I'll guarantee that you will not avert your eyes or ears from her. She is still an American Beauty and her IQ is likely several standard deviations above yours. The odds are good because her IQ is that far above mine. Indeed, I chose wisely.
Our citizens suffer from both a math and a science skill shortfall. Based on comparable test scores, International agencies consistently place the US population in the lower one.-.third of the groupings. That's sad. Many professional educators consider us innumerate. We don't even handle fractions very well.
Physics professor John Allen Paulos authored a terrific book on this subject. His 1988 book is titled " Innumeracy, Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences" . His introductory comment is: " Innumeracy.........plagues far too many otherwise knowledgeable citizens". I agree, therefore I post.
Just a little understanding of Conditional Probability, of Kalman filter techniques, and of Monte Carlo simulation tools will possibly improve decision-making under uncertainty conditions. Although not universally applicable, when judiciously applied it's the right tool for the right job.
I used Monte Carlo analyses when making my retirement decision. These codes do thousands of possible scenarios. Some folks used a few spreadsheet calculations. What percentage return did they insert into the annual investment return box? In effect, it was a guesstimate. In reality, the spreadsheet is just an oversimplified Monte Carlo analysis without a sufficient number of cases to explore all possibilities.
The MFO panel is renown for its civility with only a few exceptions. I guess I encourage these exceptions. I "bring out the clowns".
This exchange is a waste of time, but a response is needed to balance the nasty quibble group. Thank you for your valued attention.
I know that you recognized that my defensive rant against the MFO subgroup that I called the quibble group was not directed at you. That group wants to enter a gun fight with a knife; they choose to limit their tool kit. I propose to enter that fight with a machine gun equivalent. So do you.
I agree with your meaningful and focused submittal. In Conditional Probability instances, a very precise understanding of problem details is needed to properly analyze it. Your analysis is spot-on. As the World War II song Wing and a Pray states "(you) really hit the target tonight".
Comments
Regards,
Ted
I'm not sure that these studies are showing much beyond people having a sense of "likelihood"; not necessarily demonstrating ability to quantify or compare. The studies could just be showing that everything is in how the "uncertainty is expressed".
Here's an example of how framing the same problem different ways can lead people to different conclusions:
A probability puzzle I'm fond of goes:
You have three hats, each contains two balls.
One has two white balls, one has two red balls, one has a red and a white ball.
I draw a ball at random.
Version 1 (the puzzle's formulation): The ball I drew was white. What are the odds of the other ball in the hat being white?
Version 2 (embeds the correct analysis within the question): What are the odds of the other ball in the hat being the same color?
Phrased the first way, many people will think: it couldn't be the red/red hat. So of the remaining hats, there's a 50/50 chance that the white/white hat was chosen; the odds must be 50%.
Phrased the second way, it is apparent that 2/3 of the hats have balls of the same color, so the odds of the second ball being the same color as the first is 2/3. That's the correct answer. (White or red doesn't matter.)
""Can we put a limit on posts...like 45-80 words or whoever can put me in La La land first. I would say put me to "sleep"..."
Good grief!
About your riddle above, maybe we should use Monte Carlo simulation for the answer?
"I think Old Joe has been playing with Balls, way too long....thats 11 words that speeks volumes "
should have read:
"I think Old Joe has been playing with balls, way too long....that's 12 words that speak volumes "
We apologize for the multitude of errors, including the apparent inability to count past 10.
Haven't we already started enough trouble for one night?
It always puzzles me why a small group of MFO members take issue with my postings that advocate a more complete set of math tools to aid the investment decision making process. Why?
The group quibbles over non sequitur elements and rambles over unrelated personal assertions. Since they reference my posts, I guess they read them, and I suppose they fear their impact. That's too bad, but I believe MFO is designed as a forum to express alternate investment viewpoints and how to improve investment decision-making. It is not a playful chat room; it is serious stuff.
Please take note of who initiated the disparaging commentary. For the record, I must reply.
The overall commentary is like a scatter gun blast; it's totally unfocused, but wildly directed at post word length, on marriage partners, and on Monte Carlo analysis. I'll address each sequentially.
Developing a position on any matter requires several minimum components: why it is an issue, some historical context, a few candidate approaches, supporting data, reliable references, and conclusions. That's a tough assignment if an arbitrary, highly constrained word limit is enforced. Please note that the MFO monthly Commentary does not surrender to a word limit and is better for not imposing one. A word limitation is an unnecessary regulation. A solution is simple if a member feels that a post is boring.
The Mayan culture is surely not the American culture. The photo of the Maya grandmother and child is charming. She is a beautiful woman who seems happy after what is likely an arduous lifetime. Good for her. I married a beautiful and smart Oklahoma woman. I chose wisely. Good for me; good for her. If by happenstance we ever meet, I'll guarantee that you will not avert your eyes or ears from her. She is still an American Beauty and her IQ is likely several standard deviations above yours. The odds are good because her IQ is that far above mine. Indeed, I chose wisely.
Our citizens suffer from both a math and a science skill shortfall. Based on comparable test scores, International agencies consistently place the US population in the lower one.-.third of the groupings. That's sad. Many professional educators consider us innumerate. We don't even handle fractions very well.
Physics professor John Allen Paulos authored a terrific book on this subject. His 1988 book is titled " Innumeracy, Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences" . His introductory comment is: " Innumeracy.........plagues far too many otherwise knowledgeable citizens". I agree, therefore I post.
Just a little understanding of Conditional Probability, of Kalman filter techniques, and of Monte Carlo simulation tools will possibly improve decision-making under uncertainty conditions. Although not universally applicable, when judiciously applied it's the right tool for the right job.
I used Monte Carlo analyses when making my retirement decision. These codes do thousands of possible scenarios. Some folks used a few spreadsheet calculations. What percentage return did they insert into the annual investment return box? In effect, it was a guesstimate. In reality, the spreadsheet is just an oversimplified Monte Carlo analysis without a sufficient number of cases to explore all possibilities.
The MFO panel is renown for its civility with only a few exceptions. I guess I encourage these exceptions. I "bring out the clowns".
This exchange is a waste of time, but a response is needed to balance the nasty quibble group. Thank you for your valued attention.
Best Regards.
I know that you recognized that my defensive rant against the MFO subgroup that I called the quibble group was not directed at you. That group wants to enter a gun fight with a knife; they choose to limit their tool kit. I propose to enter that fight with a machine gun equivalent. So do you.
I agree with your meaningful and focused submittal. In Conditional Probability instances, a very precise understanding of problem details is needed to properly analyze it. Your analysis is spot-on. As the World War II song Wing and a Pray states "(you) really hit the target tonight".
Thank you for your welcomed contribution.
Best Wishes.