
How to Be Wrong (2016) - JonahBraun
https://mathenchant.wordpress.com/2016/1/16/how-to-be-wrong/
======
jonathanstrange
Oh man, I'm always glad to hear I'm not the only one who got the Monty Hall
problem wrong. Here is my embarrassing MH story.

Like Paul Erdős, I resorted to experimentation. Very much unlike Paul Erdős
the computer program I wrote contained a one-off error in its PRNG that
coincidentally confirmed the wrong result. I then spent a day or so on Usenet
insisting stubbornly on the wrong solution until some very kind person on
sci.crypt made a complete truth table as a proof. That exhaustive proof
immediately convinced me of my idiocy.

Lesson: If a bunch of smart and educated people tell you that you're wrong,
then you're probably wrong.

~~~
umvi
> Lesson: If a bunch of smart and educated people tell you that you're wrong,
> then you're probably wrong.

Not always the case. As they say, science advances one funeral (of smart and
educated people) at a time...

~~~
EForEndeavour
There will always be exceptions, hence the "probably" in their lesson. There's
paradigm shifts, and then there's an unnoticed bug in code hacked together to
prove something to oneself.

------
theaeolist
As a CS university lecturer, I acknowledge that there is little room for
exploration, and the chance of being wrong, in most assessment schemes. Any
mistake loses points and lowers the GPA, so nobody likes to make mistakes,
however creative and interesting. Shame. The system cannot be easily revised
because the students themselves oppose it. To them it seems intuitively unfair
that somehow those who make mistakes may get the same points as those who get
it right.

~~~
WilliamEdward
You didn't read their first point - if you're going to be wrong, do so in
private. You should be making as many mistakes as possible at home or after
hours so that by class or test time you never make them again. Mistakes are a
way of learning but not a way of doing. After all, the entirety of life was
built with 1 tool - the mistake.

~~~
jjjensen90
Wait a minute, mistakes are a "way of learning" but you should avoid them in
school?

~~~
WilliamEdward
You should avoid them when trying to produce actual good work and results,
obviously. Before that point, make as many as you want so you can learn how to
produce flawless results.

------
coldtea
> _Sometimes something even simpler than the “I used to think so too but now I
> know better” criterion can be used to unmask bunk; if there’s a good story
> and one that’s disappointingly banal, usually the latter is the one that’s
> unfortunately true._

A problem with this is that there are now increasingly more people who
automatically opt for the "disappointingly banal" story even in cases when the
good story is the actually true one (and insist on it) -- because it enables
them to take pride in "debunking" and feel superior to others.

In other words, where once most people went for the "good story" for
psychological reasons (because it's more satisfying, makes for interesting
talk, etc), now, with the raise of sites like Snopes, "fact-checking" forums,
sceptic sites, and so on, there's an increasing equally bogus motive for
preferring the banal story.

(And this is orthogonal to Occam's razor. For one, because the banal and the
interesting story might be of equal simplicity and with equally few
prerequisites. Beside's Occam's razor is just an observation, not an absolute
law: sometimes the more elaborate course is indeed what happened).

~~~
Y_Y
> even in cases when the good story is the actually true one

I enjoy being a jerk and ruining a story as much as the next person, but you
have to check your facts before doing something like that.

Are there any good examples you've come across of someone miscorrecting a
"good" story to a banal one?

------
kranner
vos Savant's article on this that lists highlights from the letters:

[http://marilynvossavant.com/game-show-
problem/](http://marilynvossavant.com/game-show-problem/)

~~~
Zrdr
The Monty Hall problem, as it is initially stated by vos Savant (and even in
this link) is not well written. It make implicit assumptions about the host
behavior.

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Other_host_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#Other_host_behaviors)

If this had been clear from the beginning, there would not have been so much
confusion about this problem. So in this case, vos Savant is also quite
"wrong".

~~~
mannykannot
Vos Savant claimed that, of the people who explained their demurral, most
were, in fact, basing their objections on the intended reading of the
question.

------
Isamu
Such a great read.

>I tell my students that, in the first place, they need to get over the fear
of making mistakes.

>So my answer to the question “How to be wrong?” is: “Early and often!”

>And if you can’t be genuinely modest, fake it. Develop a habit of always
acting in such a way that if you prove to be wrong, it won’t make you look
really really bad.

>certain truths may be denied to us unless we pass through a preparatory stage
of error.

>For now, I’ll skip ahead to the moral: Sometimes, when you find the right
hole, you shouldn’t just put one foot into it. You should jump in with both
feet the way Alice did, and see what kind of wonderland it leads to.

------
bookofjoe
"Being Wrong — Adventures in the Margin of Error"; wonderful 2010 book
reviewed here by Dan Gilbert:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/books/review/Gilbert-t.ht...](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/books/review/Gilbert-t.html)

------
yesenadam
Wow, I liked it (although none of the Monty Hall story was new to me) until
the part where he was disgustingly dismissive and insulting to Semmelweis.
Then I stopped reading. A less sympathetic account can hardly be imagined, I
thought it was shameful.

~~~
ghusbands
It clearly assumes that the reader is aware of the background and simply
states that it is "conceivable" that Semmelweis' attitude (whether warranted
or not) may have negatively impacted his message. It seems like a sound point;
that sort of thing does unfortunately happen.

~~~
yesenadam
Semmelweis "the medical pioneer whose unyielding adherence to principles of
hygiene may have been responsible for the deaths of millions. Sure, he saved
lots of people, but it’s conceivable that the practice of routine hand-washing
in surgical theatres might have spread farther, and faster, if the man had
never been born (and therefore never antagonized so much of the medical
establishment with his rigidity and brusqueness, and therefore never put hand-
washing in such bad odor)."

I don't think that saying the writer here 'simply states that it is
"conceivable" that Semmelweis' attitude (whether warranted or not) may have
negatively impacted his message' is a reasonable interpretation of that
passage, to say the least. (I also can't see that it "clearly assumes" what
you say it does. You probably wouldn't link to the guy's wikipedia page if you
assume people know not only who he is but the background too)

What was his 'attitude'? It drove him nuts that no-one would listen?

~~~
ggm
A professor at a university I worked at, had such antipathy for the computer
centre director who had a personal chair for his non-teaching role, that we
were under standing instructions to vote against anything he suggested at a
departmental meeting. Yet, both had to agree on significant computing spend
for the university. Net result? lose-lose outcomes...

------
stephengillie
Be right, from a different point of view.

