Another Example of The luckyme Syndrome

[David Sklansky]

I sometimes take baths rather than showers. I sometimes talk on my cellphone while in the tub. If I'm not careful, the phone gets a tiny bit wet, and when it does, it goes on the fritz for a few hours until it totally drys. The symptoms vary.

Today I was careless again and about a half an hour later the phone started acting up and I couldn't call out. My friend, who knows a little bit about electronics, asked to look at the phone and the battery and pronounced it ruined. She gave me some technical reasons which are off the subject. But every battery that had this symptom, in her experience, was kaput.

I told her that I would bet the phone would be OK in a few hours. Even money. I gave her my reason which was that the problem was due to moisture and it would go away. Just like it always had. She became insulted and gave me the luckyme retort that this problem was not caused by moisture and that I needed a new phone. The fact that it happened to pop up right after my using the phone in the bath was just a coincidence. I replied that I would accept her answer if the problem was undeniably caused by something else but as long as she couldn't say that, then the problem was PROBABLY caused by the moisture. Given the fact that it had occurred right after the bath. And that it would probably fix itself just like it always had. IT DIDN'T MATTER MUCH THAT THESE SYMPTOMS WERE USUALLY CAUSED BY SOMETHING ELSE.

She was forced to let her anger subside a few hours later when I called her with the phone she wanted me to throw away.

[SplawnDarts]

Is that really what you've termed "Luckyme syndrome" or is it simply a case of 2 conflicting sets of background probabilities? In her experience, P(dead|symptoms) = 1. In your experience P(!dead|wet) = 1.

In my technical experience, because I know a thing or two about wet electronics, I would expect the phone to recover. But I don't see an obvious way, by reasoning from probabilities, that one could conclude you were right and she was wrong.

[bigbootch]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that really what you've termed "Luckyme syndrome" or is it simply a case of 2 conflicting sets of background probabilities? In her experience, P(dead|symptoms) = 1. In your experience P(!dead|wet) = 1.

In my technical experience, because I know a thing or two about wet electronics, I would expect the phone to recover. But I don't see an obvious way, by reasoning from probabilities, that one could conclude you were right and she was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]


I can't speak for DS, but let me give this a try:

Yes, he is talking about 2 conflicting background probabilities. The difference is, one is much more specific than the other: his own personal experience with that particular phone under his particular usage patterns, versus all phones (of that same make and model) under all usage patterns by all people. I think he is saying that in this case, #1 takes precedence over #2.

Another example that might be more intuitive might be: most people struggle in class XYZ, but I've had some exposure to XYZ before and it's something that I personally am very good at, so I most likely will do well in the class.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is that really what you've termed "Luckyme syndrome" or is it simply a case of 2 conflicting sets of background probabilities? In her experience, P(dead|symptoms) = 1. In your experience P(!dead|wet) = 1.

In my technical experience, because I know a thing or two about wet electronics, I would expect the phone to recover. But I don't see an obvious way, by reasoning from probabilities, that one could conclude you were right and she was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]


I can't speak for DS, but let me give this a try:

Yes, he is talking about 2 conflicting background probabilities. The difference is, one is much more specific than the other: his own personal experience with that particular phone under his particular usage patterns, versus all phones (of that same make and model) under all usage patterns by all people. I think he is saying that in this case, #1 takes precedence over #2.

[/ QUOTE ]
Her reasoning is specific as well - specific to the symptom.

What we're trying to compute is P(dead|symptom, wet) and Dave has P(dead|wet) and she has P(dead|symptom). We can't apply a naive version of Bayes' Theorem and combine the two pieces of information, because it's very possible that wet is not conditionally independent from symptom. From a probability POV, I believe we're stuck.

I do believe there's a logical flaw in her reasoning, but it's different from what Dave's suggesting. I believe the flaw is a failure to apply Occam's razor.

Dave's explanation of the phone's failure has one obvious cause, and one obvious effect, and it's plausible that they're connected. That's the simplest possible kind of theory in a case like this.

Her explanation has one real (but unnamed) cause, an extra "fake" cause of being wet, an effect, and we'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume whatever cause she suggested really is plausible for the result.

Now, her theory is more complicated because of the extra fake cause, so by Occam's razor it's less preferable than Dave's.

[Onaflag]

You guys are all missing the point. Can't you see we have been tasked with guessing this female electronics confidant's age?

I say she's past her prime (late 20s would be over the hill for David) and he has no intentions of trying to bag her. Otherwise, whether the stupid phone worked again or not, he'd have congratulated her intelligence and asked that she accompany him to the mall to help choose a better one.

34.

Onaflag..........

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
...whether the stupid phone worked again or not, he'd have congratulated her intelligence and asked that she accompany him to the mall to help choose a better one.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering when someone would suggest the real +EV play [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are all missing the point. Can't you see we have been tasked with guessing this female electronics confidant's age?

I say she's past her prime (late 20s would be over the hill for David) and he has no intentions of trying to bag her. Otherwise, whether the stupid phone worked again or not, he'd have congratulated her intelligence and asked that she accompany him to the mall to help choose a better one.

34.

Onaflag..........

[/ QUOTE ]

I think she was in the tub with him. I mean, really, what grown man actually takes a bath unless they have company?

NCAces

[Shandrax]

Isn't this all about Occam's Razor?

[drunkencowboy]

Im sure Sklanksy called her after making a drive up to Cingular and buying a new phone.. Then he told her she had lost the bet and took the money so that the phone was free. lol

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
And that it would probably fix itself just like it always had. IT DIDN'T MATTER MUCH THAT THESE SYMPTOMS WERE USUALLY CAUSED BY SOMETHING ELSE.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have it backwards, it wasn't her using the luckyme argument it was you. Essentially, enough specific information will reach a point where it overrides much more general 'background' information.

If she had experience with with 100 phones with that symptom and 90 of them were kaput. It has little bearing on your specific case of 'recent moisture / drying ' will typically fire up again.

She's making the same error people did in the black teacher example. The fact that the crime rate of the 30M black people in america is, say, 3% ( including black teachers) tells us nothing about the crime rate of black teachers .. we're in such a small specialized section of the field that there is no reason to think the causes for the general rate apply to it.

The trick to these situations is that both experiences can be 'right'. Your limited 'wet/dry/working' can be a small subset of her much larger data base. She may have seen that symptom 100 times and 90 times the phone was kaput so her 'general law' is right. You may have had a handful of specific wet/dry cases that would often be part of her 10 time exception.

The error being made in cases like this is the lack of the overlapping conditions that apply in similar looking situations such as shy people being waitresses rather than librarians or women (mis)diagnosed with breast cancer.

luckyme