law of large numbers

Posted: January 4th, 2007 | Author: Alex | Filed under: perception | No Comments »

The law of large numbers is interesting and useful:

For example, the average weight of 10 apples taken from a barrel of 100 apples is probably closer to the “real” average weight of all 100 apples than the average weight of 3 apples taken from that same barrel. This is because the sample of 10 is a larger number than the sample of only 3 and better represents the whole group. If you took a sample of 99 apples out of 100 apples, the average would be almost exactly the same as the average for all 100 apples.

This is not just logical, but it also appears so intuitive as to be self-evident.

And yet: Looking at product ratings, it is often easy to give preference to a product with a 5-star rating to one with a lower 4-star rating. Of course, the rating itself really loses much of its meaning without knowing the number of people who would agree with it. Maybe a product that received 100 4-star ratings (and no others) is of higher quality than a product that received 10 5-star ratings (and no others).

Yes, these ratings, especially in a context of collaborative filtering are subjective. Just because someone enjoyed a product (show, etc.) does not mean that you will, too. But that exactly is the power of large numbers: The more people enjoy a product the higher the probability that that will be the case for you, too.

However: It frequently and indeed subtlely appears to be intuitive to accept  certains claims as true, even though they would – upon further investigation – seem improbable. Often, we like to look for conclusions that can confirm just exactly what we want to believe. I suspect this is true in those cases as well – at least to some degree.


not walking too fast

Posted: January 3rd, 2007 | Author: Alex | Filed under: perception, thought | No Comments »

Consider this:

Jack is walking slightly ahead of Jill.

Jill: Slow down, Jack. You’re walking too fast.

What is the problem with this?

Well, in actuality, it is fairly likely that both individuals are walking at pretty much the same speed. If they started out walking next to each other and Jack is now slightly ahead, then he accelerated his gait at some point, but that really does not mean at all that he is still speeding up. It is fairly likely that he is not. Jill however, is phrasing her statement in the present tense, clearly making it sounds like her companion is still speeding up. If true, this would of course imply that the distance between the two would increase until she lost sight of him.

This really does make a difference. The manner in which the reality is portayed can be an indicator of how it was perceived. If Jill really does perceive Jack as accelerating (even though he is not), then her picture of reality is not accurate. This might seem like a neglectable error, but even in this simple case options to her are impacted: If Jack is not speeding up, she will be able to catch up easily and continue the walk with him. If he is accelerating, her attempts to walk by his side, will cause much more struggle.

Even simple issues like this deserve to be questioned, when they can reveal flaws in thinking and ultimately perception of the world around us.