Comments on: Pascal’s Wager explains why men are clueless romantically? Error management theory http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2009/08/12/pascals-wager-explains-why-men-are-clueless-romantically-error-management-theory/ Articles on game theory and personal finance Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:43:59 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Scott http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2009/08/12/pascals-wager-explains-why-men-are-clueless-romantically-error-management-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-5484 Scott Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:40:48 +0000 http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/?p=1618#comment-5484 I think this concept delves into our basic biology. Pattern recognition systems can suffer from two types of basic errors: Type I (false positive) - This is when an anticipated condition is detected when it isn't actually there. Type II (false negative) - This is when an anticipated condition is not detected but it is actually there. It is in the nature of pattern recognition systems that calibrating them to reduce one type of error necessarily makes them more prome to the other. My experience with this concept is in the realm of computer security, so we are concerned with reducing Type II errors. The "anticipated condition" in this case are security risks and vulnerabilities. We are more than happy to have false positives (risk/vulnerability detected when none actually exists) so long as we minimize the actual risks/vulnerabilities that we fail to detect. The same, I belive, applies to living organisms. Our brains are biological pattern recognition machines. The "anticipated conditions" for us are: sexual opportunities, food sources, environmental threats, threats from predators, etc. (Anything that has a significant change of affecting our ability to survive and breed). It is in our best interest to see opportunties and threats that aren't there (where the only loss is the energy expended to pursue/avoid it) as opposed to *not* seeing opportunties and threats that are there (Where the loss is starvation/being eaten). Since this is part of the foundation of our psychology, it makes sense that this type of thinking would appear in other areas as well. (Such as evaluating the romantic interest of potential partners). This behavior can also be generalized as the phenomenon of pareidolia (seeing patterns in randomness) which appears in all sorts of behaviors and beliefs (most notably those of the superstitious variety). I think this concept delves into our basic biology.

Pattern recognition systems can suffer from two types of basic errors:

Type I (false positive) – This is when an anticipated condition is detected when it isn’t actually there.

Type II (false negative) – This is when an anticipated condition is not detected but it is actually there.

It is in the nature of pattern recognition systems that calibrating them to reduce one type of error necessarily makes them more prome to the other.

My experience with this concept is in the realm of computer security, so we are concerned with reducing Type II errors. The “anticipated condition” in this case are security risks and vulnerabilities. We are more than happy to have false positives (risk/vulnerability detected when none actually exists) so long as we minimize the actual risks/vulnerabilities that we fail to detect.

The same, I belive, applies to living organisms. Our brains are biological pattern recognition machines. The “anticipated conditions” for us are: sexual opportunities, food sources, environmental threats, threats from predators, etc. (Anything that has a significant change of affecting our ability to survive and breed).

It is in our best interest to see opportunties and threats that aren’t there (where the only loss is the energy expended to pursue/avoid it) as opposed to *not* seeing opportunties and threats that are there (Where the loss is starvation/being eaten).

Since this is part of the foundation of our psychology, it makes sense that this type of thinking would appear in other areas as well. (Such as evaluating the romantic interest of potential partners).

This behavior can also be generalized as the phenomenon of pareidolia (seeing patterns in randomness) which appears in all sorts of behaviors and beliefs (most notably those of the superstitious variety).

]]> By: Eyal http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2009/08/12/pascals-wager-explains-why-men-are-clueless-romantically-error-management-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-5483 Eyal Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:31:25 +0000 http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/?p=1618#comment-5483 This reminds me of an episode of House that I saw. The patient was turning to stone (her body was ossifying). The doctors came up with a dozen reasons why it could be happening but quickly narrowed it down to one: The only one that isn't incurable/fatal. Being wrong had no drawback (she would have died anyway) but being right would have saved her life. Any other reason for her ailment would have meant her death. The scene was rather witty. If you can find it, it's worth watching for the quick, logical reasoning. This reminds me of an episode of House that I saw. The patient was turning to stone (her body was ossifying). The doctors came up with a dozen reasons why it could be happening but quickly narrowed it down to one: The only one that isn’t incurable/fatal.

Being wrong had no drawback (she would have died anyway) but being right would have saved her life. Any other reason for her ailment would have meant her death.

The scene was rather witty. If you can find it, it’s worth watching for the quick, logical reasoning.

]]> By: el chief http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2009/08/12/pascals-wager-explains-why-men-are-clueless-romantically-error-management-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-5477 el chief Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:03:39 +0000 http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/?p=1618#comment-5477 You are falling for the flaw of averages. Most men are terrible at reading women, but some are excellent. Men are not systematically clueless, but on average, they are. The reason that most men are clueless is that they are systematically lied to by women and beta men. Read roissy.wordpress.com and you will understand. You are falling for the flaw of averages. Most men are terrible at reading women, but some are excellent. Men are not systematically clueless, but on average, they are.

The reason that most men are clueless is that they are systematically lied to by women and beta men.

Read roissy.wordpress.com and you will understand.

]]>