Prior Analytics
9 July 2010, 19:23 UTCIncoherent Prediction Markets?
I have known about prediction markets for some time, and find botboth the theoretical arguments and the evidence convincing. But only today did I register for one and look around. I found something odd.
read more...
22 June 2010, 2:15 UTCWho Knows Best?
Ann Nicholson just pointed me to an excellent discussion of two approaches to behavioral economics: nudge vs. regulate.
read more...
22 June 2010, 1:13 UTCEmacs Calendar & pdfLaTeX
How to print emacs calendar landscape using pdfLaTeX.
read more...
13 April 2010, 1:12 UTCRiding the E+ Sun Ray EZ Recumbent
6 April 2010, 18:46 UTCPerformance-Weighted Opinions
27 March 2010, 1:00 UTCYudkowsky on Priors
2 February 2010, 19:28 UTCFundamental Law
14 January 2010, 2:39 UTCPhoto in The Fairest
19 November 2009, 21:47 UTCProbability Words
6 November 2009, 15:12 UTCExplosives Divining Rod
6 November 2009, 10:58 UTCConsistency
31 October 2009, 0:57 UTCPHIL 721 Advanced Seminar: Causation
22 October 2009, 3:29 UTCBNs for Intelligence Analysis
21 October 2009, 23:59 UTCBNs for Initiative Assessment
6 October 2009, 13:33 UTCNetbooks vs Thinkpad X40
14 September 2009, 19:12 UTCpasswd:
13 August 2009, 0:37 UTCPay Too Much For Food & Power
6 November 2008, 16:51 UTCGelman on the Election
9 October 2008, 3:32 UTCRail vs. Bus
5 August 2008, 12:12 UTCBicycle Helmets & Pedestrian Casualties
9 July 2008, 14:58 UTCReston to GMU Bike Route -- Updated
1 July 2008, 21:45 UTCCorrelation & Causation
18 June 2008, 20:38 UTCThe Crowd Within
16 June 2008, 19:40 UTCAudiophiles, Significance Tests, Greenspun's Tenth Rule
10 June 2008, 13:27 UTCDemocracy
13 March 2008, 0:24 UTCKrugman on Interstellar Trade
6 March 2008, 1:33 UTCScience & Magic
29 November 2007, 1:58 UTCFixed Links
10 October 2007, 16:41 UTCAviation collision experiments
22 September 2007, 14:52 UTCPay for free software
Following the theme of the recent Field Evaluations Workshop, the NYT reports that Iraqi security checkpoints are relying on bogus detectors. The operators think they work, and won't believe test results. [NYT article]
Phil Rubin's presentation at the NRC Workshop discussed the clear evidence that Voice Stress analysis doesn't work, but noted the value of "a product in the hand" and how "The urgent need for results may overshadow the often difficult and slow process of evaluation." And once you have used the device and gotten a hit, it is nearly impossible to convince you it doesn't work.
In the case of Voice Stress, however, Rubin pointed out that there is another benefit. Even interrogators who accepted the results and the order to stop using it asked if they could keep it in the room and turned on. Why? Because even though the device may not work, the person being interrogated has some belief that it might work, and if they are guilty, and the machine appears to detect some of their lies, that alone is enough to induce confession. But we Rubin points out we need to separate the fear/authority effects from the intrinsic reliability.
It may be legitimate to place a dubious device in the room if it helps elicit true confessions (without increasing false ones). Explosives are not subject to such tricks, though Schneier's post today suggests drivers might feel pressured.
But where Voice Stress researchers seemed to think they had a real effect, it seems the U.K. company knows they are selling diving rods. They have refused to submit to a test when offered $1 million for passing above random chance, and they claim the device relies on such vagaries as the operator's pulse and body temperature.
The wands sell for $16K to $60K apiece. And customers are "mostly in developing countries". Great.
It seems the device and debunking is
old news. But apparently they're still being sold.