<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with statistics and probability</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/statistics+probability</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'statistics' and 'probability' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:56:36 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:56:36 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Black Swans and The Fourth Quadrant</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/74942/Black%2DSwans%2Dand%2DThe%2DFourth%2DQuadrant</link>
		<description> &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb08/taleb08_index.html&quot;&gt;THE FOURTH QUADRANT: A MAP OF THE LIMITS OF STATISTICS&lt;/a&gt; by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. &quot;In the following Edge original essay, Taleb continues his examination of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000PDZFCK/metafilter-20/ref=nosim/&quot;&gt;Black Swans&lt;/a&gt;, the highly improbable and unpredictable events that have massive impact. He claims that those who are putting society at risk are &quot;no true statisticians&quot;, merely people using statistics either without understanding them, or in a self-serving manner.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2008:site.74942</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:56:36 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>BlackSwans</category>
		<category>NassimTaleb</category>
		<category>probability</category>
		<category>statistics</category>
		<dc:creator>vronsky</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Probability senses tingling batman!</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/47494/Probability%2Dsenses%2Dtingling%2Dbatman</link>
		<description> &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/051205crbo_books1&quot;&gt;Experts can suck at predicting the future.&lt;/a&gt;  Their intuitive sense of probability is no more developed than lay-people&apos;s.  A classic experiment is to present two indistinguishable choices are presented, but with unequal probability of reward.  Humans look for complex patterns, which don&apos;t exist, and preform quite poorly.  Rats quickly recognize the choice with higher probability, and preform optimally.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.47494</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:38:01 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>batman</category>
		<category>expert</category>
		<category>future</category>
		<category>prediction</category>
		<category>probability</category>
		<category>statistics</category>
		<dc:creator>jeffburdges</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Incredible -- but true coincidences</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/43331/Incredible%2Dbut%2Dtrue%2Dcoincidences</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://yoke.cc/coinci.htm"&gt;Incredible -- but true coincidences&lt;/a&gt; are fascinating, and pleasing, to the psyche. I tend to agree with John Littlewood (a University of Cambridge mathematician) that &quot;...in the course of any normal person&apos;s life, miracles happen at a rate of roughly one per month.&quot; In other words, statistically speaking, unusual coincidences are to be expected in a world teeming with billions of humans. Still, I find such coincidences stangely inspiring. More can be found &lt;a href=&quot;http://yoke.cc/coinci2.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.43331</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:37:47 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>coincidence</category>
		<category>ESP</category>
		<category>probability</category>
		<category>psychic</category>
		<category>statistics</category>
		<dc:creator>ember</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>The Complexity of a Controversial Concept</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/42922/The%2DComplexity%2Dof%2Da%2DControversial%2DConcept</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://bactra.org/bulletin/logic-of-diversity.html"&gt;The Logic of Diversity&lt;/a&gt; &quot;A new book, &lt;i&gt;The Wisdom of Crowds&lt;/i&gt; [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/33307&quot;&gt;..:&lt;/a&gt;]  by &lt;a href=&quot;http://greg.org/archive/new_yorker_magazine_database.php&quot;&gt;The New Yorker&lt;/a&gt; columnist James Surowiecki, has recently popularized the idea that groups can, in some ways, be smarter than their members, which is superficially similar to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~spage/&quot;&gt;Page&apos;s results&lt;/a&gt;. While Surowiecki gives many examples of what one might call collective cognition, where groups out-perform isolated individuals, he really has only one explanation for this phenomenon, based on one of his examples: jelly beans [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/contest.html&quot;&gt;...&lt;/a&gt;] averaging together many independent, unbiased guesses gives a result that is probably closer to the truth than any one guess. While true &#8212; it&apos;s the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem&quot;&gt;central limit theorem&lt;/a&gt; of statistics &#8212; it&apos;s far from being the only way in which &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cscs.umich.edu/diversity/&quot;&gt;diversity&lt;/a&gt; can be beneficial in problem solving.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://bactra.org/weblog/362.html&quot;&gt;(Three-Toed Sloth)&lt;/a&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.42922</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:03:37 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>complexity</category>
		<category>diversity</category>
		<category>evolution</category>
		<category>heuristics</category>
		<category>logic</category>
		<category>math</category>
		<category>mathematics</category>
		<category>physics</category>
		<category>probability</category>
		<category>research</category>
		<category>science</category>
		<category>statistics</category>
		<dc:creator>kliuless</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Dyson On The Paranormal or Expect A Miracle</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/34321/Dyson%2DOn%2DThe%2DParanormal%2Dor%2DExpect%2DA%2DMiracle</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16991"&gt;Expect a miracle?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson&quot;&gt;Freeman&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sns.ias.edu/~dyson/&quot;&gt;Dyson&lt;/a&gt; on Littlewood&apos;s Law of Miracles:  &quot;...the total number of events that happen to us is about thirty thousand per day, or about a million per month. ...The chance of a miracle is about one per million events. Therefore we should expect about one miracle to happen, on the average, every month.&quot;  From his review of book debunking the paranormal (whose views he isn&apos;t entirely willing to accept).

Via &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/&quot;&gt;Marginal Revolution&lt;/a&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.34321</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2004 07:55:27 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>debunking</category>
		<category>dyson</category>
		<category>miracle</category>
		<category>percentages</category>
		<category>probability</category>
		<category>skeptic</category>
		<category>skepticism</category>
		<category>statistics</category>
		<dc:creator>Jos Bleau</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


