|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
25th April 2011, 11:31 PM | #81 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,064
|
This is soooooo dead obvious I can't understand how it occupies a forum for (discussion of) critical [st|th]inkers. I'm beginning to believe some of you don't belong here.
Correct, well its 16.9491525% but w/ a little rounding .... It is GIVEN that we have 99 innocent and 1 guilt party in the sample space. There is a real question - when the statement is made that the detector correctly classifies 95% of the time we can ask about the "false positive" vs "false negative" rates, but without qualification we must assume that the F+ F- rates are identical (the "ideal" case for a detector design). Among the 99 innocent we expect 95% correct classification, and among the 1 guilty we expect 95% correct classification. So the classification is 99 innoc. tests as=> (99*0.95)innoc. + (99*0.05)guilty = 94.05%inn 4.95%guil 1 guilty test as => (1*0.05) innoc. + (1*0.95)guilty = 00.05%inn 0.95%guil So we expect test results of a large population with 1% guilty as: 94.1%innocent-by-test, 5.9% guilty-by-test So IF we select one person of the 100 at random, then *IF* the sample tests as 'guilty' the conditional probability that they are actually guilty is:
Quote:
Arriving at the correct answer and then agreeing with your detractors is no better than being wrong in the first place. Join the bartenders - your life is like a box of chocolate. |
26th April 2011, 12:01 AM | #82 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
|
I agree, so far.
You're just asserting this. I don't see any explanation. And I disagree. The two numbers we should be comparing are the total number of guilty results (in the denominator) and the number of guilty results that are correct (in the numerator). That yields the probability that the subject is guilty, given that the test says he's guilty. Suppose we test someone whom we know is guilty, and the test says he's guilty. Your method yields 1 / (1*0.95 + 0*0.05) = 1.0526... as the probability that he's guilty, which is obviously wrong. Probabilities are between 0 and 1. |
26th April 2011, 01:28 AM | #83 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,280
|
The test doesnt work for me in either Firefox or Internet Explorer.
It asks me to drag and drop a few things on a risk bar then goes to a page where it says: The next task is loading. This may take a little while - please do not refresh the page... Then does nothing. |
26th April 2011, 01:57 AM | #84 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,456
|
No, the numerator is probability that you pick the criminal AND that he fails the lie detector test. The denominator is the probability that the person you pick fails the lie detector. This gives you the probability that someone is a criminal if they were picked randomly and failed the test. That was the question asked. This was explained by multiple people, myself included, on the previous page.
|
26th April 2011, 02:01 AM | #85 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,667
|
|
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
26th April 2011, 02:18 AM | #86 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,774
|
With reference to the probability tree below, the problem can be split into two stages.
The first stage is the probability of picking either the criminal or an innocent person from the population. As there is 1 criminal and 99 innocent people in the population, the probabilities are 1/100 = 0.01 and 99/100 = 0.99, respectively. The second stage is the probability the detector pings or stays silent. In the question it states the detector classifies 95% of people correctly. Therefore, the probability the detector pings given the criminal has been selected is 0.95. Similarly, the probability the detector stays silent given an innocent person has been selected is also 0.95. The probability the detector stays silent given the criminal has been selected is 1-0.95 = 0.05. Similarly, the probability the detector pings given an innocent person has been selected is 1-0.95 = 0.05. What we're interested in is the proportion of pings from the machine which represent a true positive (i.e. a criminal being tested) to the total number of pings from the machine for all people in the population being tested. This is given by: P(Criminal given Ping) = P(Criminal)*P(Ping given Criminal) / [P(Criminal)*P(Ping given Criminal) + P(Innocent)*P(Ping given Innocent)] Which, as others have already pointed out, is Bayes' rule. Plugging in the numbers gives: P(Criminal given Ping) = 0.01*0.95 / [0.01*0.95 + 0.99*0.05] = 0.16 (to 2sf). |
26th April 2011, 08:35 AM | #87 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
So, am I a bartender whose life is like a box of chocolates? How to decide?
Well, suppose we look at the inverse question (what is the probability the machine pings but we have an innocent person?) and apply Stevea's method and apply Ivor's method. Obviously the results of the two questions should add to 1. Using Ivor's method, we would get .99(.05)/.059 = .8389 which is the result we would expect, since .8389 + .1610 = 1 Using Stevea's method we would get .99/.059 = 15.25, which cannot even be a probability since it is greater than 1 Sorry, Stevea, you are now relegated to bartender status; enjoy your box of chocolates. |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
26th April 2011, 10:38 AM | #88 |
Knave of the Dudes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,936
|
|
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy |
|
26th April 2011, 11:20 AM | #89 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
Sorry, that approach does not work. You were just lucky to get a close result.
Consider 1,000 people with one guilty person. Your approach would yield: in 1,000 people there will be about 50 false positives and 1 true positive. Therefore, the odds that any positive is a true positive is about 1000/51, or 19.6%." Using the correct method demonstrated by Ivor, we would get: .001(.95)/.001(.95) +.999(.05) = 1.8% |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
26th April 2011, 11:26 AM | #90 |
Knave of the Dudes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,936
|
What? Oh, see, I expressed myself very poorly. It's 100 as in 100%, not 100 people. So in your case it would be 1.96%, which is close enough to the true value (and inexact for various reasons). A better way to put it is 1/51, that is, 1 person out of 51, in which case you get it in decimal value.
ETA: Avalon's below edit refers to an earlier version of this post where I managed to misinterpret even my own writing, and I edited this while he was writing his. |
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy |
|
26th April 2011, 11:27 AM | #91 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
I disagree with your interpretation of TB's approach; I believe the 100 in the numerator is just a way of getting the percentage. I believe that appropriate extension would be:
In 1,000 people there will be about 50 false positives and 1 true positive. Therefore, the odds that any positive is a true positive is about 100/51, or 1.96%. ... which is, again, pretty close -- still discounting the false negative chance. EDIT: Apparently it was a genuine error; I still prefer to have given TB the benefit of the doubt. |
26th April 2011, 11:32 AM | #92 |
Knave of the Dudes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,936
|
No, that is the way I thought of it as well, I just misinterpreted my own writing - which if anything shows how poorly written it was!
Gets a bit confusing with all the edits - I didn't see Avalon's post until I had edited my above post, and he wrote his original while I was writing my original post. |
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy |
|
26th April 2011, 12:02 PM | #93 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
27th April 2011, 07:42 AM | #94 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
|
|
27th April 2011, 07:56 AM | #95 |
Dart Fener
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,671
|
|
27th April 2011, 09:07 AM | #96 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
|
I understood that, but I was pointing out that it wasn't necessarily 6, 4 was a possible, if less likely outcome. (Although I could have been misinterpreting Beth's comment and if I'd got further through the thread I wouldn't have bothered as it's gone way past my somewhat trivial observation and I'll get me coat...)
|
27th April 2011, 09:16 AM | #97 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|