Part of the problem is that even low-probability events may be worth paying attention to.
High-probability, low-danger (or low-payout) scenarios are easy to reason about. Low-probability high-danger (or high-payout) scenarios are much harder to reason about.
Then there's the wonders of "how frequently are we testing this probability". If we test something once a second, you'd expect a once-in-a-million event to occur about once every two weeks. If we try it once a year, not so much.
On the gripping hand, when I get gut-feelings one way or another, I do tend to return to the whiteboard and start working from first principles, because I am (probably) over- or under-estimating badly. So, I guess, one can learn to live with one's cognitive limitations.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-02-27 07:12 am (UTC)High-probability, low-danger (or low-payout) scenarios are easy to reason about. Low-probability high-danger (or high-payout) scenarios are much harder to reason about.
Then there's the wonders of "how frequently are we testing this probability". If we test something once a second, you'd expect a once-in-a-million event to occur about once every two weeks. If we try it once a year, not so much.
On the gripping hand, when I get gut-feelings one way or another, I do tend to return to the whiteboard and start working from first principles, because I am (probably) over- or under-estimating badly. So, I guess, one can learn to live with one's cognitive limitations.