Friday, October 26, 2007

Professional Overconfidence

“A severe depression like that of 1920-21 is outside the range of probability” - Harvard Economic Society, Nov 16, 1929

To keep perspective I try remember that professionals built the "unsinkable" Titanic, while amateurs supposedly built the arc.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Voltaire's Judiciary

As Al Gore was winning the Nobel Peace prize, a UK Judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth contained claims based on 9 scientific errors, making it a political statement and thus unfit for inclusion in the UK school syllabus.

In an earlier post, I challenged one of these claims. Another claim is Kilimanjaro's shrinking ice cap, which in the movie, was also blamed on global warming. Yet temperature data from weather stations show lower temperatures for the region (and lower humidity). This suggests another cause for the shrinking ice cap. A plausible cause is deforrestation and the resultant lower humidity in the region. [Ed: think frost free freezers]

Coming back to the judge though, if identical principles were applied, what chance would religeous instruction have in being taught at school?

Perhaps we are not ready to go there though. As Voltaire said: "It's dangerous to be right, when the government is wrong" [Ed: ...or the masses are wrong. (sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

Calor Licitantis (Latin: Bidder's Heat)

Economists researching Ebay auctions found "45 to 50 percent of eBay auctions exceeded the 'buy it now' price"! (I'm not making this up) This irrationality has been well understood since Roman times, thus the title of this post. How little we seem to have changed...

Considering its prevalence, it's myopic to dismiss this irrationality as merely stupid. Analysis of consistent errors, however basic, can be instructive.

Looking at another example, suppose you were in a game show. There are 3 boxes, (A,B,C), one of which holds $1m. The other two, hold nothing. Choose which box you think wins the $1m.

Make a choice now.

While I'm confident that my prediction regarding your choice will be accurate, let's add a layer of complexity. Suppose I now tell you that the $1m is not in box X, where X is one of the two boxes you did not pick. Do you want to change your original choice box?

(Answer here)