Pattern Recognition

[traynor]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Really? By bad points, do mean outright errors or just disagreements with current realities?

Neither. And both. One example: the underlying premise is that people can make "snap judgements" that are as accurate (and in many cases more accurate) than carefully reasoned decisions.

It sounds quite feasible, and in some cases, in some situations, it may be. In most situations, something called the "availablility heuristic" kicks in. People tend to believe that the first thing to pop into their minds is "correct" or "most applicable" or "most relevant." The availability heuristic is--in turn--defined by and constrained by subjective perceptual biases. The latter include--among a host of others--the fundamental attribution error and cognitive dissonance.

It is a good book, very entertaining, and well worth reading. Like virtually everything else, it should be viewed critically and thoughtfully, not mindlessly accepted as Truth With a Big T. Life is not that simple.

[traynor]

"The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that occurs when people make judgments about the probability of events in the world by the ease with which examples come to mind. The availability heuristic operates on the notion that "if you can think of it, it must be important." The availability of consequences associated with an action is positively related to perceptions of the magnitude of the consequences of that action. In other words, the easier it is to recall the consequences of something, the greater we perceive these consequences to be. Sometimes, this heuristic is beneficial, but the frequencies that events come to mind are usually not accurate reflections of their actual probability in real life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundame...ribution_error

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias

[DJofSD]

Ah. OK. For a second there I thought you might have been referring to that unattached women with questionable morals at the end of the bar.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Ah. OK. For a second there I thought you might have been referring to that unattached women with questionable morals at the end of the bar.

Richard Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago and a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argues that Gladwell in Blink fails to follow his own recommendations regarding thin-slicing, and makes a variety of unsupported assumptions and mistakes in his characterizations of the evidence for his thesis.[5]The Daily Telegraph review writes, "Rarely have such bold claims been advanced on the basis of such flimsy evidence."[6]

In Think!: Why Crucial Decisions Can’t Be Made in the Blink of an Eye (Simon and Schuster, 2006), Michael LeGault argues that "Blinklike" judgements are not a substitute for critical thinking. He criticizes Gladwell for propagating unscientific notions: "As naturopathic medicine taps into a deep mystical yearning to be healed by nature, Blink exploits popular new-age beliefs about the power of the subconscious, intuition, even the paranormal. Blink devotes a significant number of pages to the so-called theory of mind reading. While allowing that mind-reading can "sometimes" go wrong, the book enthusiastically celebrates the apparent success of the practice, despite hosts of scientific tests showing that claims of clairvoyance rarely beat the odds of random chance guessing."

Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman, author of Thinking, Fast and Slow which speaks to rationality's advantages over intuition, says: "Malcolm Gladwell definitely created in the public arenas the impression that intuition is magical... That belief is false. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(book)

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dkithore

Your and Thasks postings remind me of a book, Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. Refreshing, meaningful and less esoteric.

DK

Thanks for the complement.

I haven't read the book...but, since my postings reminded you of it, I will purchase it posthaste.

Gladwell must really know his stuff...

[traynor]

Something to consider. The exact same perceptual and cognitive deficiencies found in "snap judgements" are equally found in "racing statistics" and the design of the instruments used to create such statistics. Putting a number on it does not make it true, although many believe it does. Especially a "precise" number like 36.43%. Another good read for those interested in pattern recognition (and horse racing in general):
http://theinformationdj.com/wp-conte...rrell-Huff.pdf

[DJofSD]

It's those insignificant decimals places -- sucker's 'em in every time. Of course, a basic lack of understanding of error analysis helps too.

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by traynor

Another good read for those interested in pattern recognition (and horse racing in general):
http://theinformationdj.com/wp-conte...rrell-Huff.pdf

Thanks! Aren't scanners wonderful?

[traynor]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

It's those insignificant decimals places -- sucker's 'em in every time. Of course, a basic lack of understanding of error analysis helps too.

And it helps if one has never heard of the Pareto Principle. I cringe every time I hear someone say, "80% of blah blah blah."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_analysis

Even more so when the two are combined, as in "Research has clearly established that 81.34% of blah blah blah."

[Aner]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

aners_factor

win 9348 starters 69914 13.37% 0.78 ROI

Hey Delta,

Many thanks. You just saved me mucho time barking up a wrong tree.

Aner

[DeltaLover]

np aner

[SPEEDHORSE]

This question is addressed to all. Do you consider the Sheets "O-X-O" pattern as pattern recognition?

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by traynor

And it helps if one has never heard of the Pareto Principle. I cringe every time I hear someone say, "80% of blah blah blah."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_analysis

Even more so when the two are combined, as in "Research has clearly established that 81.34% of blah blah blah."

Did not know there was a formal name associated with that. Thx.

[TrifectaMike]

Originally Posted by traynor

And it helps if one has never heard of the Pareto Principle. I cringe every time I hear someone say, "80% of blah blah blah."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_analysis

Even more so when the two are combined, as in "Research has clearly established that 81.34% of blah blah blah."

I've heard of the Pareto Distribution and I like it. As much as I like the Normal Distribution, Poisson Distribution, Logistic Distribution or any other distribution.

Does the Pareto Distribution have some unique inherent problems? If so, what are they?

Mike (Dr Beav)

[traynor]

Originally Posted by TrifectaMike

I've heard of the Pareto Distribution and I like it. As much as I like the Normal Distribution, Poisson Distribution, Logistic Distribution or any other distribution.

Does the Pareto Distribution have some unique inherent problems? If so, what are they?

Mike (Dr Beav)

The Pareto Principle is a rule of thumb, frequently misused in the belief that there is a natural law (somewhere) suggesting that 80% of something is caused by 20% of something else. For example:

"The distribution is claimed to appear in several different aspects relevant to entrepreneurs and business managers. For example:

• 80% of your profits come from 20% of your customers
• 80% of your complaints come from 20% of your customers
• 80% of your profits come from 20% of the time you spend
• 80% of your sales come from 20% of your products
• 80% of your sales are made by 20% of your sales staff

Therefore, many businesses have an easy access to dramatic improvements in profitability by focusing on the most effective areas and eliminating, ignoring, automating, delegating or retraining the rest, as appropriate.

In computer science and engineering control theory such as for electromechanical energy converters, the Pareto principle can be applied to optimization efforts. For example, Microsoft noted that by fixing the top 20% of the most reported bugs, 80% of the errors and crashes would be eliminated."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

I assume you use it differently, and have good reasons for doing so. I am referring specifically to the use of the Pareto Principle to imply a statistical distribution that is often purely imaginary.