Hi,
I said:
<<
Type one errors (alpha) result when you reject a hypothesis even
though it is true (as above). A type two error (beta) occurs when you
do not reject a hypothesis even though it is false.
The problem is that these two error are related -- if you decrease the
probability of an alpha error, the probability of a beta error goes
up, and vice-versa.
>>
KMO <kmo@c-realm.com> writes:
<<
> Now, depending on your outlook, you can decide which of
> the two errors would be worse, and tip the scales accordingly.
Wow! You can do that? Right on. Do you have some managable algorithm
for calculating the expected utility of an alpha mistake and a beta
mistake to determine when and which way one should tip the scales?
Maggs may recall from logic class some methods for calculating
expected utility, but they aren't particularly managable, especially
if you don't have a pen and paper and a few minutes to perform the
operations.
>>
Well, as you said below, a good guide is your intuition... with friends you trust, you can afford to tip the scales more towards beta errors, in fact, I suspect most people do this naturally. As humans, we also have a very natural tendency to tip towards alpha errors in hostile situations, perhaps more so than is good for us.
However, I'm sure that it would be possible to construct formal models based on numerical schemes to decide when to tip and which way. As with all such models, the major weakness is in "numerifying" the data for analysis.
<<
Sure. I can trust myself without invoking any kind of "evidence of
things unseen".
Do you make the decission to tip the scales intuitively? Do you
perceive a comfortable semantic distance between "having confidence in
the reliablity of your intuitive judgements," "trusting your
intuition," and "having faith that you will intuitively know when to
tip the scales and which way to tip them?"
>>
<<
Exactly.
And gullible or dogmatic, you're easily manipulated.
>>
ERiC