Skip to main content
Cross Validated

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

8
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That is not correct IMHO. The best book that I've read that explains why one makes better decisions by always incorporating uncertainty into every phase of the decision is Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise. For example, the winningest poker players are those who never believe that the probability of a certain hand is 0 or 1. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 29, 2014 at 12:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @FrankHarrell I am wondering how you would answer questions such as whether to build a road, whether to buy a share. It is a yes or no question. Those are kinds of questions actual decision makers need to answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 29, 2014 at 21:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @FrankHarrell Surely statistics plays a role in helping make the decision. However, from robustness point of view, all we are doing is approximation of the reality. There are tons of things mathematics simply could not account for. And this is where other means come into play like instinct. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 29, 2014 at 21:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There are different kinds of decisions. Some are irrevocable. Some are nearly so, e.g., buying a stock but watching it like a hawk. Some are completely reversible. Taking the uncertainly along with you allows better decisions to be made, and quick corrections. Sometimes the best course of action is "no decision, get more data", which is precisely what R. Fisher recommended when the $P$-value is large. Creating a hard-and-firm decision using arbitrary cutpoints only gives the illusion of doing the right thing. Here is where theory and practice are one. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 29, 2014 at 21:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @FrankHarrell Thank you for your comments. I think your distinction between irrevocable decisions and otherwise is a good point. In essence, it is about the time dimension of the problem. Within a short period of time, most decisions are irrevocable. This is what happened when people are put on the spot to make the call. On the other hand, if we can afford a longer-term view, then you are right - it is better to have a system which can response to changes in circumstances. Even so, some damage, either financial or physical, is unavoidable. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 29, 2014 at 23:45