Survivor error
“Protection” is a good label for bad deeds.
Milton Friedman "Freedom to choose"
This text was the result of an analysis of some comments on the articles “Defects Like” and “Economy and Human Rights” .
By interpreting any data and drawing conclusions, some commentators made a typical “survivor's mistake”.
')
What is the "systematic error of the survivor"? This account of the known and the neglect of the unknown, but existing .
An example of the “cost” of a survivor’s mistake and an example of successfully overcoming this mistake is the work of the Hungarian mathematician Abraham Wald, who worked for the American army during World War II.
The command set before Wald the task of analyzing the holes from bullets and shrapnel on American planes and to offer a method of booking so that the pilots and planes would not die.
It was impossible to apply a full reservation - the plane was too heavy. It was necessary either to book the places where the damage was, where the bullets hit, or those places where there was no damage. Opponents of Wald offered to book damaged places (in the picture they are marked with red dots).
Wald objected. He said that the aircraft with such damage could return, while the aircraft with damage in other places could not return. Wald's viewpoint prevailed. The planes were booked where there was no damage to the returned cars. As a result, the number of surviving aircraft has increased significantly. According to some reports, Wald thus saved the lives of approximately 30% of American pilots. (In the figure I could be wrong, but the effect was very significant. Wald saved hundreds of lives).
Another illustration of the “survivor’s mistake” is the story of Cicero about the words of Diag Melossky, who argued in favor of vows to the gods, because there are many “images of saving people who fell into a storm and swore an oath to the gods to make a vow,” that "however, there are no images of those who died at sea as a result of shipwreck."
And the first “survivor’s mistake” in the comments to the article “Defects of likes” is that we don’t know how many good, useful, ingenious ideas, creations, inventions, scientific works were buried by various “dislikes”, “ignorers” and “bans” .
I quote Mr. @Sen's wording : “No one knows how many good ideas have been merged, not published, not developed out of fear of a ban. How many attempts were there, quietly ending with the author's ban, too. What is visible now is how many successful ideas are recognized immediately or late, how many unsuccessful ones are not recognized. If you rely only on what you see, then yes, everything is ok. ”
This is true for any rating system based on the preferences of the majority. Be it science, social networks, search engines, primitive tribes, religious groups or other human communities.
Not always "ban" and "dislik" occur according to "malicious intent." The “outrage” reaction to something new and unusual is a routine physiological and psychological reaction, called the fashionable word “cognitive dissonance” —that is just a feature of the whole species of Homo Sapiens, and not a property of any particular group. But the stimuli of each group may have their own. And the “newer” and “more unusual”, the stronger the indignation, the stronger the dissonance. And you need to be very good at owning your psyche so as not to lash out at the “troublemaker”. That, however, does not justify the aggressor at all. The “troublemaker” only “outrages”, while the actions of the aggressor are aimed at destruction.
The survivor’s mistake can also be found in the comments to the article “Economics and Human Rights” . And for the certification of drugs.
Below, I will give a large quote from the book “Freedom to choose” Nobel Prize winner in economics Milton Friedman, but for now I’ll just note that for some reason not all people are convinced by a huge number of clinical trials, certificates and other things, to get vaccinated, to drink prescribed antibiotics and hormones. Those. licensing and certification in this case “does not work”. At the same time, there are quite a few people applying dietary supplements or homeopathy who are not (to put it mildly) as seriously controlled as medications. There are many people who prefer to contact the healers and traditional healers, instead of going to the doctor and drinking the “chemistry” for which there are licenses, certificates, and which has passed many controls and tests.
The price of such a decision is incredibly high - from disability to death. Quick death. The time that the patient spends on treatment with dietary supplements, neglecting chemistry and a visit to the doctor, turn into a missed opportunity to have time to cure the disease at an early stage, in the so-called. "lucid interval".
At the same time, it is important to understand that before the medicine is sent for “certification”, the pharmaceutical company conducts many of its own tests and controls, including in humans.
Certification only duplicates this procedure. And in every country everything repeats, which ultimately increases the cost of the drug for the consumer.
It was a small digression. Now, strongly shortening, I quote Milton Friedman.
“ For organizing joint mutually beneficial activities of people, external forces do not require intervention, coercion or restriction of freedom ... At present, considerable evidence has accumulated that the regulatory activities of the Office (FDA) are detrimental, that it has done more harm, hindering progress in the production and distribution of useful drugs, than good, protecting the market from harmful and ineffective drugs.
The impact of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the pace of introduction of new drugs is very significant ... now it takes significantly more time to get approval for a new drug, and partly because of this, the cost of developing new drugs has multiplied ... to introduce a new product on the market, it is necessary to spend $ 54 million and about 8 years, i.e. there was a hundred-fold increase in costs and a fourfold increase in time compared with the overall two-fold increase in prices. As a result, US pharmaceutical companies are no longer able to develop new drugs to treat patients with rare diseases. In addition, we can not even take full advantage of foreign achievements, because the Office does not accept evidence from abroad as evidence of the effectiveness of preparations.
If you investigate the therapeutic value of drugs that did not appear in the US, but are available, for example, in England, you will encounter a number of cases where patients have suffered from a lack of drugs. For example, there are drugs that are called beta-blockers and can prevent death from a heart attack — a secondary prevention of death from myocardial infarction — if these drugs were available in the US, they could save about ten thousand lives a year ...
An indirect consequence for the patient is the fact that therapeutic decisions that were previously at the discretion of the physician and the patient are increasingly taken at the national level by expert committees. For the Food and Drug Administration, the top priority is to avoid risk, so that we have safer drugs, but no more effective ones .
It is not at all accidental that the Food and Drug Administration, despite the best intentions, by its actions discourages the development and marketing of new and potentially useful drugs.
Put yourself in the place of the Office official responsible for approving or disapproving the new drug. You can make two mistakes:
1. To approve a medicine that has unforeseen side effects that will lead to the death or serious deterioration of the health of a relatively large number of people.
2. Refuse to approve a medicine that could save many people’s lives or alleviate enormous suffering and without adverse side effects.
If you make the first mistake and approve, your name will appear on the front pages of all newspapers. You will fall into severe disgrace. If you make the second mistake, who will know about it? A pharmaceutical company promoting a new drug that can be dismissed as a sample of greedy businessmen with stone hearts? Some angry chemists and doctors involved in the development and testing of a new drug?
Patients whose lives could be saved will no longer be able to protest. Their families do not even know that their loved ones have lost their lives due to the “caution” of an unknown official from the Food and Drug Administration.
Even with the best intentions in the world, you would unwittingly prohibit many good medicines or postpone their approval in order to avoid even the remote possibility of missing a medicine on the market that would have side effects in the form of newspaper hype ...
The harm caused by the activities of the Food and Drug Administration is not a consequence of the shortcomings of people in positions of responsibility. Many of them are capable and dedicated civil servants. Nevertheless, social, political and economic pressure determines the behavior of people responsible for the activities of a government agency, much more than they themselves determine its behavior. No doubt there are exceptions, but they are almost as rare as barking cats. ” The end of the quote.
Thus, the “survivor’s mistake” in assessing the effectiveness of the work of the supervising body “manages” to humanity 10,000 lives per year with only one drug in one country. The size of the entire invisible part of this “iceberg” is difficult to estimate. And, perhaps, scary.
“Patients whose lives could be saved will no longer be able to protest. Their families do not even know that people dear to them have lost their lives because of the “caution” of an unknown official . ” Not a single careless manufacturer caused such damage to their fellow citizens.
Among other things, the certification service is quite expensive for taxpayers. Those. to all residents. According to Milton Friedman’s calculations, the proportion of people “eaten” by officials regulating various social programs in the United States is about half of the total amount of taxes allocated for various social benefits. This half is spent on salaries and other expenses of officials from the social distribution and regulatory system. Any business would have gone bankrupt a long time ago with such unproductive overhead costs.
It is like paying a waiter for poor service at a restaurant tip in the amount of the cost of dinner. Or pay the packaging of products in the supermarket in the amount of their full value just for the fact that you pack them in sachets.
The presence of an official in the chain of manufacturers, consumer goods or consumer services doubles the cost of any goods and services. Those. it would be possible to buy twice as much goods and services for the salary of any person if the official was not in control of these goods and services.
As Judge Louis Brandeis said: “Experience teaches that freedom especially needs protection when the government rushes toward beneficial goals.”
Licensing, like other prohibitive ways of regulating (depressing) the economy, is not at all new and known from the middle ages. All types of guilds, castes, estates - this is nothing like licensing and certification, translated into modern language. And their goal has always been the same - to limit competition, raise prices, increase the income of "their" and prevent "strangers." Those. all the same discrimination and banal cartel collusion, worsening the quality and raising prices for the consumer.
Maybe you need to somehow get out of the Middle Ages? In the courtyard of the 21st century.
Accidents on the roads satisfied drivers with licenses and rights. Medical errors are made by certified and licensed doctors. Poorly taught, psychological trauma inflicted by licensed and certified teachers to students. At the same time, healers, homeopaths, shamans and charlatans do great without licenses and exams and thrive superbly, do their work, meeting the demand of the population.
At the same time, with all these licenses and permits, a mass of officials is fed, who do not produce any goods or services that are useful to citizens, but for some reason has the right to decide for a citizen where to get medical treatment and study for his own taxes .
It remains only to be surprised that, in spite of the prohibitive vector of the work of officials, in the 20th century, pharmaceutical companies succeeded in registering many drugs that saved millions of lives.
And it remains only to be horrified by the amount of drugs that were not developed, were not registered, were recognized as unpromising economically due to the high cost and duration of the licensing process. To be horrified how many people cost the life and health the result of the prohibitive activity of officials.
At the same time, the presence of a huge number of licensing, controlling, supervising and penalizing officials and authorities did not at all reduce the number of charlatans, folk medicines, all sorts of panaceas and magic pills. Some of them are produced under the guise of dietary supplements, some simply distributed around any pharmacies, shops and authorities.
Should we continue to insist on an erroneous way of licensing and adjustment? I think not.
If the brain of the heroic respected reader, who has read the article to the end, is still not blazing with fierce cognitive dissonance, then I would recommend four books written in a very simple language and destroy many of the myths concerning capitalism, the mistakes of the survivor, economics and state control. These books are: Milton Friedman , Freedom to Choose, Ayn Rand , Capitalism. The Unfamiliar Ideal, ” Stephen Levitt , Freeconic, Malcolm Gladwell , Geniuses and Outsiders, Frederick Bastia, “ What is visible and what is not visible. ”
And here is another article about the "error of the survivor."
Illustrations : McGeddon , Sergey Elkin , Akrolesta .
PS Dear readers, I ask you to remember that “The style of controversy is more important than the subject of controversy. Objects change, and style creates civilization. ”(Grigory Pomerantz). If I have not responded to your comment, then something is wrong with the style of your controversy.
Addition.
I apologize to everyone who wrote a sensible comment, but I did not answer. The fact is that one of the users got into the habit of minus my comments. Each. As soon as it appears. This prevents me from gaining “charge” and putting a plus in karma and for the answer to those who write a sensible comment.
But if you still want to get an answer and discuss the article, you can write me a personal message. I answer them.
Addition 2.
"Survivor Error" by the example of this article.
At the time of this writing, article 33.9k views and 141 comments.
Suppose that most of them are negative with respect to the article.
Those. The article was read by 33900 people. Scold 100. 339 times less.
Those. if it is very rough and rounded with assumptions, then the author has no data on the opinion of 33,800 readers, but there is only data on the opinion of 100 readers (in fact, even less, since some readers leave a few comments).
And what does the author do? am i reading the comments? I make the typical "survivor's mistake." I analyze only a hundred "minuses", completely (psychologically) ignoring the fact that it is only 0.3% of opinions. And on the basis of these 0.3%, that within the limits of statistical error, I conclude that the article did not like it. I get upset, not having to this the slightest reason, if you think logically, but not emotionally.
So The “survivor's mistake” lies not only in the field of mathematics, but also, probably, in the field of psychology and neurophysiology, which makes its detection and correction a rather “painful” thing for the human brain.
Addition 3.
Although this is beyond the scope of this article, but since the issue of control over the quality of drugs is quite vigorously discussed in the comments, I answer all at once.
An alternative to state control may be the creation of private expert laboratories that will check the quality of drugs, competing with each other. (And such laboratories, societies, associations and institutes already exist in the world).
What will it give? First, eliminate corruption, because it will always be possible to double-check and refute the data of corrupt expertise. Secondly, it will be faster and cheaper. Just because a private business is always more efficient than a public one. Thirdly, the expert laboratory will sell its services, which means it will be responsible for the quality, terms, prices. All this will reduce the total cost of drugs in the pharmacy. Fourth, if the packaging does not include a check mark in an independent private expert laboratory, or even two or three, then the buyer will understand that the medicine is unverified. Or verified many times. And it will “vote with a ruble” for one or another pharmaceutical manufacturer.
Addition 4.
It seems to me that it is important to take into account the “survivor’s mistake” when developing AI, machine learning algorithms, etc.
Those.to include in the tutorial not only well-known examples, but also a certain delta, perhaps even theoretical models of the “possible unknown”.
On the example of “drawing” AI, this is m., Conventionally “van Gogh + Delta”, then with a large delta, the machine will create a filter based on van Gogh, but it is completely different from it.
Similar training m. useful where there is a lack of data: medicine, genetics, quantum physics, astronomy, etc.
(I apologize if "crooked" explained).
Note (I hope the last)
To everyone who read to the end - "Thank you." I am very pleased to see your "bookmarks" and "views."
Milton Friedman "Freedom to choose"
This text was the result of an analysis of some comments on the articles “Defects Like” and “Economy and Human Rights” .
By interpreting any data and drawing conclusions, some commentators made a typical “survivor's mistake”.
')
What is the "systematic error of the survivor"? This account of the known and the neglect of the unknown, but existing .
An example of the “cost” of a survivor’s mistake and an example of successfully overcoming this mistake is the work of the Hungarian mathematician Abraham Wald, who worked for the American army during World War II.
The command set before Wald the task of analyzing the holes from bullets and shrapnel on American planes and to offer a method of booking so that the pilots and planes would not die.
It was impossible to apply a full reservation - the plane was too heavy. It was necessary either to book the places where the damage was, where the bullets hit, or those places where there was no damage. Opponents of Wald offered to book damaged places (in the picture they are marked with red dots).
Wald objected. He said that the aircraft with such damage could return, while the aircraft with damage in other places could not return. Wald's viewpoint prevailed. The planes were booked where there was no damage to the returned cars. As a result, the number of surviving aircraft has increased significantly. According to some reports, Wald thus saved the lives of approximately 30% of American pilots. (In the figure I could be wrong, but the effect was very significant. Wald saved hundreds of lives).
Another illustration of the “survivor’s mistake” is the story of Cicero about the words of Diag Melossky, who argued in favor of vows to the gods, because there are many “images of saving people who fell into a storm and swore an oath to the gods to make a vow,” that "however, there are no images of those who died at sea as a result of shipwreck."
And the first “survivor’s mistake” in the comments to the article “Defects of likes” is that we don’t know how many good, useful, ingenious ideas, creations, inventions, scientific works were buried by various “dislikes”, “ignorers” and “bans” .
I quote Mr. @Sen's wording : “No one knows how many good ideas have been merged, not published, not developed out of fear of a ban. How many attempts were there, quietly ending with the author's ban, too. What is visible now is how many successful ideas are recognized immediately or late, how many unsuccessful ones are not recognized. If you rely only on what you see, then yes, everything is ok. ”
This is true for any rating system based on the preferences of the majority. Be it science, social networks, search engines, primitive tribes, religious groups or other human communities.
Not always "ban" and "dislik" occur according to "malicious intent." The “outrage” reaction to something new and unusual is a routine physiological and psychological reaction, called the fashionable word “cognitive dissonance” —that is just a feature of the whole species of Homo Sapiens, and not a property of any particular group. But the stimuli of each group may have their own. And the “newer” and “more unusual”, the stronger the indignation, the stronger the dissonance. And you need to be very good at owning your psyche so as not to lash out at the “troublemaker”. That, however, does not justify the aggressor at all. The “troublemaker” only “outrages”, while the actions of the aggressor are aimed at destruction.
The survivor’s mistake can also be found in the comments to the article “Economics and Human Rights” . And for the certification of drugs.
Below, I will give a large quote from the book “Freedom to choose” Nobel Prize winner in economics Milton Friedman, but for now I’ll just note that for some reason not all people are convinced by a huge number of clinical trials, certificates and other things, to get vaccinated, to drink prescribed antibiotics and hormones. Those. licensing and certification in this case “does not work”. At the same time, there are quite a few people applying dietary supplements or homeopathy who are not (to put it mildly) as seriously controlled as medications. There are many people who prefer to contact the healers and traditional healers, instead of going to the doctor and drinking the “chemistry” for which there are licenses, certificates, and which has passed many controls and tests.
The price of such a decision is incredibly high - from disability to death. Quick death. The time that the patient spends on treatment with dietary supplements, neglecting chemistry and a visit to the doctor, turn into a missed opportunity to have time to cure the disease at an early stage, in the so-called. "lucid interval".
At the same time, it is important to understand that before the medicine is sent for “certification”, the pharmaceutical company conducts many of its own tests and controls, including in humans.
Certification only duplicates this procedure. And in every country everything repeats, which ultimately increases the cost of the drug for the consumer.
It was a small digression. Now, strongly shortening, I quote Milton Friedman.
“ For organizing joint mutually beneficial activities of people, external forces do not require intervention, coercion or restriction of freedom ... At present, considerable evidence has accumulated that the regulatory activities of the Office (FDA) are detrimental, that it has done more harm, hindering progress in the production and distribution of useful drugs, than good, protecting the market from harmful and ineffective drugs.
The impact of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the pace of introduction of new drugs is very significant ... now it takes significantly more time to get approval for a new drug, and partly because of this, the cost of developing new drugs has multiplied ... to introduce a new product on the market, it is necessary to spend $ 54 million and about 8 years, i.e. there was a hundred-fold increase in costs and a fourfold increase in time compared with the overall two-fold increase in prices. As a result, US pharmaceutical companies are no longer able to develop new drugs to treat patients with rare diseases. In addition, we can not even take full advantage of foreign achievements, because the Office does not accept evidence from abroad as evidence of the effectiveness of preparations.
If you investigate the therapeutic value of drugs that did not appear in the US, but are available, for example, in England, you will encounter a number of cases where patients have suffered from a lack of drugs. For example, there are drugs that are called beta-blockers and can prevent death from a heart attack — a secondary prevention of death from myocardial infarction — if these drugs were available in the US, they could save about ten thousand lives a year ...
An indirect consequence for the patient is the fact that therapeutic decisions that were previously at the discretion of the physician and the patient are increasingly taken at the national level by expert committees. For the Food and Drug Administration, the top priority is to avoid risk, so that we have safer drugs, but no more effective ones .
It is not at all accidental that the Food and Drug Administration, despite the best intentions, by its actions discourages the development and marketing of new and potentially useful drugs.
Put yourself in the place of the Office official responsible for approving or disapproving the new drug. You can make two mistakes:
1. To approve a medicine that has unforeseen side effects that will lead to the death or serious deterioration of the health of a relatively large number of people.
2. Refuse to approve a medicine that could save many people’s lives or alleviate enormous suffering and without adverse side effects.
If you make the first mistake and approve, your name will appear on the front pages of all newspapers. You will fall into severe disgrace. If you make the second mistake, who will know about it? A pharmaceutical company promoting a new drug that can be dismissed as a sample of greedy businessmen with stone hearts? Some angry chemists and doctors involved in the development and testing of a new drug?
Patients whose lives could be saved will no longer be able to protest. Their families do not even know that their loved ones have lost their lives due to the “caution” of an unknown official from the Food and Drug Administration.
Even with the best intentions in the world, you would unwittingly prohibit many good medicines or postpone their approval in order to avoid even the remote possibility of missing a medicine on the market that would have side effects in the form of newspaper hype ...
The harm caused by the activities of the Food and Drug Administration is not a consequence of the shortcomings of people in positions of responsibility. Many of them are capable and dedicated civil servants. Nevertheless, social, political and economic pressure determines the behavior of people responsible for the activities of a government agency, much more than they themselves determine its behavior. No doubt there are exceptions, but they are almost as rare as barking cats. ” The end of the quote.
Thus, the “survivor’s mistake” in assessing the effectiveness of the work of the supervising body “manages” to humanity 10,000 lives per year with only one drug in one country. The size of the entire invisible part of this “iceberg” is difficult to estimate. And, perhaps, scary.
“Patients whose lives could be saved will no longer be able to protest. Their families do not even know that people dear to them have lost their lives because of the “caution” of an unknown official . ” Not a single careless manufacturer caused such damage to their fellow citizens.
Among other things, the certification service is quite expensive for taxpayers. Those. to all residents. According to Milton Friedman’s calculations, the proportion of people “eaten” by officials regulating various social programs in the United States is about half of the total amount of taxes allocated for various social benefits. This half is spent on salaries and other expenses of officials from the social distribution and regulatory system. Any business would have gone bankrupt a long time ago with such unproductive overhead costs.
It is like paying a waiter for poor service at a restaurant tip in the amount of the cost of dinner. Or pay the packaging of products in the supermarket in the amount of their full value just for the fact that you pack them in sachets.
The presence of an official in the chain of manufacturers, consumer goods or consumer services doubles the cost of any goods and services. Those. it would be possible to buy twice as much goods and services for the salary of any person if the official was not in control of these goods and services.
As Judge Louis Brandeis said: “Experience teaches that freedom especially needs protection when the government rushes toward beneficial goals.”
Licensing, like other prohibitive ways of regulating (depressing) the economy, is not at all new and known from the middle ages. All types of guilds, castes, estates - this is nothing like licensing and certification, translated into modern language. And their goal has always been the same - to limit competition, raise prices, increase the income of "their" and prevent "strangers." Those. all the same discrimination and banal cartel collusion, worsening the quality and raising prices for the consumer.
Maybe you need to somehow get out of the Middle Ages? In the courtyard of the 21st century.
Accidents on the roads satisfied drivers with licenses and rights. Medical errors are made by certified and licensed doctors. Poorly taught, psychological trauma inflicted by licensed and certified teachers to students. At the same time, healers, homeopaths, shamans and charlatans do great without licenses and exams and thrive superbly, do their work, meeting the demand of the population.
At the same time, with all these licenses and permits, a mass of officials is fed, who do not produce any goods or services that are useful to citizens, but for some reason has the right to decide for a citizen where to get medical treatment and study for his own taxes .
It remains only to be surprised that, in spite of the prohibitive vector of the work of officials, in the 20th century, pharmaceutical companies succeeded in registering many drugs that saved millions of lives.
And it remains only to be horrified by the amount of drugs that were not developed, were not registered, were recognized as unpromising economically due to the high cost and duration of the licensing process. To be horrified how many people cost the life and health the result of the prohibitive activity of officials.
At the same time, the presence of a huge number of licensing, controlling, supervising and penalizing officials and authorities did not at all reduce the number of charlatans, folk medicines, all sorts of panaceas and magic pills. Some of them are produced under the guise of dietary supplements, some simply distributed around any pharmacies, shops and authorities.
Should we continue to insist on an erroneous way of licensing and adjustment? I think not.
If the brain of the heroic respected reader, who has read the article to the end, is still not blazing with fierce cognitive dissonance, then I would recommend four books written in a very simple language and destroy many of the myths concerning capitalism, the mistakes of the survivor, economics and state control. These books are: Milton Friedman , Freedom to Choose, Ayn Rand , Capitalism. The Unfamiliar Ideal, ” Stephen Levitt , Freeconic, Malcolm Gladwell , Geniuses and Outsiders, Frederick Bastia, “ What is visible and what is not visible. ”
And here is another article about the "error of the survivor."
Illustrations : McGeddon , Sergey Elkin , Akrolesta .
PS Dear readers, I ask you to remember that “The style of controversy is more important than the subject of controversy. Objects change, and style creates civilization. ”(Grigory Pomerantz). If I have not responded to your comment, then something is wrong with the style of your controversy.
Addition.
I apologize to everyone who wrote a sensible comment, but I did not answer. The fact is that one of the users got into the habit of minus my comments. Each. As soon as it appears. This prevents me from gaining “charge” and putting a plus in karma and for the answer to those who write a sensible comment.
But if you still want to get an answer and discuss the article, you can write me a personal message. I answer them.
Addition 2.
"Survivor Error" by the example of this article.
At the time of this writing, article 33.9k views and 141 comments.
Suppose that most of them are negative with respect to the article.
Those. The article was read by 33900 people. Scold 100. 339 times less.
Those. if it is very rough and rounded with assumptions, then the author has no data on the opinion of 33,800 readers, but there is only data on the opinion of 100 readers (in fact, even less, since some readers leave a few comments).
And what does the author do? am i reading the comments? I make the typical "survivor's mistake." I analyze only a hundred "minuses", completely (psychologically) ignoring the fact that it is only 0.3% of opinions. And on the basis of these 0.3%, that within the limits of statistical error, I conclude that the article did not like it. I get upset, not having to this the slightest reason, if you think logically, but not emotionally.
So The “survivor's mistake” lies not only in the field of mathematics, but also, probably, in the field of psychology and neurophysiology, which makes its detection and correction a rather “painful” thing for the human brain.
Addition 3.
Although this is beyond the scope of this article, but since the issue of control over the quality of drugs is quite vigorously discussed in the comments, I answer all at once.
An alternative to state control may be the creation of private expert laboratories that will check the quality of drugs, competing with each other. (And such laboratories, societies, associations and institutes already exist in the world).
What will it give? First, eliminate corruption, because it will always be possible to double-check and refute the data of corrupt expertise. Secondly, it will be faster and cheaper. Just because a private business is always more efficient than a public one. Thirdly, the expert laboratory will sell its services, which means it will be responsible for the quality, terms, prices. All this will reduce the total cost of drugs in the pharmacy. Fourth, if the packaging does not include a check mark in an independent private expert laboratory, or even two or three, then the buyer will understand that the medicine is unverified. Or verified many times. And it will “vote with a ruble” for one or another pharmaceutical manufacturer.
Addition 4.
It seems to me that it is important to take into account the “survivor’s mistake” when developing AI, machine learning algorithms, etc.
Those.to include in the tutorial not only well-known examples, but also a certain delta, perhaps even theoretical models of the “possible unknown”.
On the example of “drawing” AI, this is m., Conventionally “van Gogh + Delta”, then with a large delta, the machine will create a filter based on van Gogh, but it is completely different from it.
Similar training m. useful where there is a lack of data: medicine, genetics, quantum physics, astronomy, etc.
(I apologize if "crooked" explained).
Note (I hope the last)
To everyone who read to the end - "Thank you." I am very pleased to see your "bookmarks" and "views."
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/443790/
All Articles