|
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. |
23rd April 2011, 03:28 PM | #1 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,774
|
Very hard question in online test: all answers are wrong?
I've just taken the Bang goes the Theory Big Risk Test. All answers were multiple choice. One of the questions was as follows:
Quote:
The value I calculated was... Have I missed something or are all the available options wrong, albeit only by a small amount? |
23rd April 2011, 03:32 PM | #2 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 787
|
It's 95%
The machine is 95% accurate. The person said he's not a criminal and he is lying... therefore if the machine is accurate, he's is a criminal. It's a trick question. |
23rd April 2011, 03:38 PM | #3 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,598
|
I don't think you've missed anything, you've computed the exact probability.
I think what they've done is round to integers. The test is expected to identify 6 people out of the 100 as criminals. One of them actually is the criminal. Thus, the probability is 1/6 ~ 17%. Your computation also takes into account the small chance that more or less than 6 people are identified as criminals. |
__________________
Beth "You are not the stuff of which you are made." Richard Dawkins, July 2005, 10:45 http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_daw..._universe.html |
|
23rd April 2011, 03:48 PM | #4 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
I believe 0.01/(0.01*0.95+0.99*0.05) = .1695
is the correct answer. |
__________________
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 |
|
23rd April 2011, 04:48 PM | #5 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,466
|
I agree with Beth
|
__________________
Don't feed the trolls. Just ignore them. |
|
23rd April 2011, 05:12 PM | #6 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 604
|
I think you are missing false positive and false negatives. I am trying to figure out the math but my best guest would be 83
|
__________________
God, I love this place! A total geekout on a baseball question. - Piggy |
|
23rd April 2011, 07:05 PM | #7 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
|
I get 19/118 = 16.1016949...%.
So, the same as Ivor the Engineer. |
23rd April 2011, 07:17 PM | #8 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
|
That doesn't mean what you think it means.
It means, if the machine tests someone who is lying, with probability 95% it will say he's lying and with probability 5% it will say he's telling the truth. Likewise, if the machine tests someone who is telling the truth, with probability 95% it will say he's telling the truth and with probability 5% it will say he's lying. Suppose you're telling the truth, and the guy running the machine knows it. Perhaps he asked you, "what color is the sky?" and you said, "blue". There is a 5% chance that the machine will misclassify you and say that you're lying. If that happens, the proper conclusion is that the machine must have messed up this time; the proper conclusion is not that you're probably lying about the sky being blue. The prior probability of lying needs to be taken into account. |
23rd April 2011, 07:33 PM | #9 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,456
|
Me too. Baye's Law FTW.
|
23rd April 2011, 07:42 PM | #10 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 604
|
|
__________________
God, I love this place! A total geekout on a baseball question. - Piggy |
|
23rd April 2011, 07:58 PM | #11 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
|
|
23rd April 2011, 08:55 PM | #12 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
I'd to it this way. Say you tested all 100 people. There would be 100 results. 5 would be incorrect and 95 would be correct (given in the problem). What is the probability that your criminal would be in the larger group? 95%
If he is in the larger pool, the test is giving the right answer, as it will for anyone in that group. So I'd go with 95%. I don't think the joint probability with the additional information should matter. |
23rd April 2011, 08:59 PM | #13 |
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,709
|
For those thinking the answer is 95%... its a bit more complicated than that...
http://www.badscience.net/2006/12/cr...ictive-values/ http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/da...-if-it-worked/ |
__________________
Sponsor me please! http://www.justgiving.com/Catherine-Kiernan http://www.justgiving.com/Catherine-Kiernan1 My blog |
|
23rd April 2011, 09:31 PM | #14 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 737
|
|
23rd April 2011, 09:51 PM | #15 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 787
|
OK... about the 95%, I think it has a bit to do with how you establish odds and how you read the question.
Let's look at flipping coins for a clearer example if you don't mind. If I flip a coin once, the odds of getting heads is 50%. If I flip a coin a hundred times, I should get heads about 50 times. The odds of getting heads on throw 59 though... are much lower. Or, the odds of getting 99 heads is lower, etc. However, each specific throw is still 50%, no matter what happened before. So... look at your problem and how it is worded, specifically this part.
Quote:
I hope that explains my reasoning. |
23rd April 2011, 09:55 PM | #16 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
|
Yes.
Yes. No. Let's say the criminal is definitely in the larger group, and so he fails the test. That doesn't mean that this person who failed the test is the criminal. Five other people besides the criminal also failed. This person is probably one of them, simply because there are more of them. |
23rd April 2011, 10:03 PM | #17 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
|
|
23rd April 2011, 10:19 PM | #18 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 174
|
I have a 95% chance of getting caught lying to my wife, but there is only a 1% chance of that.
|
23rd April 2011, 10:37 PM | #19 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,222
|
I know very little about statistics, but I get that there is only a 16.66% chance approx. that a person failing the test is actually a criminal. If all 100 suspects are tested, approx. 94 would pass the test. We can expect the machine to go ''ping'' 6 times, once for the criminal and 5 times for innocent persons. So, if only one of those 6 selected by the machine is actually guilty, that would be 1 out of 6, or 16.66%
I have not taken into account the possibility (5 out of 100) that the criminal could pass the test. I don't know the math to do that. |
__________________
And although I'm not often ''amazed'' these days, I am frequently appalled, but that may be simply because reality keeps upping the ante.- ''The Word Detective'', Evan Morris. |
|
23rd April 2011, 10:56 PM | #20 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
Presumably all 100 people involved would deny being the criminal. So the chance that the machine correctly identified the criminal would depend on how reliable the machine is - 95%.
|
23rd April 2011, 11:09 PM | #21 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
Presumably all 100 people involved would deny being the criminal. So the chance that the machine correctly identified the criminal would depend on how reliable the machine is - 95%.
|
23rd April 2011, 11:10 PM | #22 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
No. Let's say we changed the test slightly, instead of having 100 people in the room and one is the criminal, what if we have 1000 people in the room and one is the criminal? By your logic, that doesn't change the probability, correct?
Okay, so what if we have 100 people in the room and none are criminals? Now, you pick someone at random and the lie detector goes "ping" and says he's lying. What are the chances that he's a criminal? Clearly your knowledge about how many criminals there are in the room has an impact on the probability. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
23rd April 2011, 11:17 PM | #23 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
|
Yes.
The question isn't: if the criminal takes the test, what's the probability that the test says he's a criminal? The question is: if a random person takes the test, and the test says he's a criminal, what's the probability that he is the criminal? (The answer to the first question is 95%. But we don't really care about that question, because it assumes that we already know who the criminal is. Which, of course, we don't; we're trying to find him.) |
23rd April 2011, 11:20 PM | #24 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,221
|
Ivor, the test gives you all the results at the end.
5.A criminal hides in a room with 99 innocent people. You have a lie detector that correctly classifies 95% of people. You pick someone at random, wire them up to the machine, and ask them if they are a criminal. They say no, but the machine goes ‘ping’ and says the person is lying. What is the chance that you have caught the criminal? Your answer: 95%. Correct answer: 17%. (Yeah, I got that one wrong, too. ) |
23rd April 2011, 11:31 PM | #25 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
|
Since you picked the person randomly, there's a 1% chance that you have the criminal, and a 99% chance that you don't have him. Let's say you got an innocent person, but the machine still goes 'ping'. You just found one of the 5 times in a hundred that the machine is wrong. Similarly, if you do have him then there's a 5% chance that the machine won't 'ping'.
Compare the chances - 95% of the 1% chance that you do have him, but 5% of the 99% chance that you don't. It's much more likely that you got the wrong answer (false detection) than the correct one. |
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
23rd April 2011, 11:52 PM | #26 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
|
Another way of looking at it. You have a signal whose strength is 1% of full scale, but your detector has a noise level of 5%. Your signal is buried in the noise!
|
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
24th April 2011, 12:46 AM | #27 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
No, because there are false positive. The easiest way to do that is to use bigger number instead : they are not testing 100 person but 300 million, the whole USA population. How many will be "pinged" as being criminal ? 15 million. But there is only 1 criminal.
So now you have 15 million person and one of them is the criminal, but you have no further test at your disposition. Still thinking that the probability of detecting the criminal is 95% ? It is clearly not. By the way this is why testing a whole population with even an ultra mega super precise "positive test" don't work. Due to the amount of false positive. |
24th April 2011, 01:23 AM | #28 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,666
|
|
24th April 2011, 01:24 AM | #29 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
OK got the question wrong. This actually turns out to be a standard style of question that you might find in a mathematics text book.
If the person is a criminal then there is a 95% chance that the machine will call him a liar. There is a 1% chance that the person is a criminal so there is a 95% x 1% = 0.95% that the person is a criminal and the machine calls him a liar. If the person is not a criminal then there is a 5% chance that the machine will call him a liar. There is a 99% that the person is not a criminal so there is a 5% x 99% = 4.95% chance that the person is not a criminal and the machine calls him a liar. So the probability that the machine will say "liar" is 4.95% + 0.95% = 5.9%. According to standard conditional probability forumae, the probability that a person is a liar (criminal) given that the machine said "liar" is equal to the probability that the person is a criminal and the machine said "liar" divided by the probability that the machine said "liar". ie: 0.95% / 5.9% = 16.61017% the same as the OP. |
24th April 2011, 01:45 AM | #30 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,900
|
You've pretty much got it; except approximating to the nearest integer obscures the math a bit. (If we only run the test once, we will get integers; it might help to think of running the test more than once so we get statistical averages instead to work with.) Each innocent has a 5% change of pinging. So on average, 99 x .05 = 4.95 pings from the innocents. Each criminal has a 95% chance of pinging. So on average, 1 x .95 = .95 pings from the criminal. Total pings (per 100 in the room) on average, 4.95 + .95 = 5.90. Chance a ping is the criminal: average criminal pings / average total pings = .95 / 5.90 = 16.1%. |
__________________
"Say to them, 'I am Nobody!'" -- Ulysses to the Cyclops "Never mind. I can't read." -- Hokulele to the Easter Bunny |
|
24th April 2011, 05:04 AM | #31 |
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,092
|
For a more real life related problem. The government wants to detect any spies in a large organisation. There would be thousands of loyal workers to every spy. A lie detector would have to be very reliable, much better than 95%, to be worth anything. To make matters even worse for the government the spy may have received training on how to pass the test making a false negative more likely than a false positive.
|
24th April 2011, 05:59 AM | #32 |
Knave of the Dudes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,936
|
Pretty good tests, I ended up being a social risk taker, with mid-low on everything else.
I got all "understanding risks" questions right except I miscalculated the odds of the dice coming up 6, apparently. |
__________________
"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 |
|
24th April 2011, 07:03 AM | #33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
|
Why is everyone so confused about this simple problem:
In a room of 100 people only one of whom is a criminal, a machine which has a 95% accuracy indicates that a randomly selected person is the criminal. What's the probability that the machine has actually picked the criminal. P = Ptrue positive/(Ptrue postiive + Pfalse positive) Ptrue postiive = 1/100 x 95/100 Pfalse positive = 99/100 x 5/100 P = .161016949 or 16.1016949% |
24th April 2011, 07:14 AM | #34 |
Knave of the Dudes
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,936
|
I just thought, "OK, in 100 people there will be about 5 false positives and 1 true positive. Therefore, the odds that any positive is a true positive is about 100/6, or 16-17%."
|
__________________
"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 |
|
24th April 2011, 07:16 AM | #35 |
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,709
|
|
__________________
Sponsor me please! http://www.justgiving.com/Catherine-Kiernan http://www.justgiving.com/Catherine-Kiernan1 My blog |
|
24th April 2011, 07:33 AM | #36 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
24th April 2011, 08:07 AM | #37 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,668
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
24th April 2011, 08:36 AM | #38 |
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,709
|
The dice one threw some other people apparently (found some threads discussing it).
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3261226 http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/take-a-chance-me ETA - if it were drawing from 6 numbers without replacement, I think the average would be 3.5, but because you can always throw the same number more than once, the answer is 6. I'll let someone more mathsy than me explain it better. |
__________________
Sponsor me please! http://www.justgiving.com/Catherine-Kiernan http://www.justgiving.com/Catherine-Kiernan1 My blog |
|
24th April 2011, 09:25 AM | #39 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 999
|
The fact that there are a significant number of false positives, and negatives, in a lie detector test is one of the reasons why that lie detectors are not usable in a court of law. When used on a group of random people the finding of guilt is much more likely to be wrong than right if the false answers are anywhere near the percentage given in this example. When it comes to a crime there is always a much much larger pool of innocent people than guilty people, so an indicator of guilty for anyone in that random group is probably wrong. It could even be probably wrong if you had a large enough pool of suspects.
When they first started testing for the AIDS virus the early tests had a high number of false positives. If you received a positive test result on one of those early tests it was not necessarily the end of the world. If you were a truly random subject the odds were that you did not have the disease. But people usually had a reason to be tested so the number of actual false positives was lower than that random number. |
__________________
humber: Quote: If you "feel" 1G for 1sec, how far you travel depends only on your mass. |
|
24th April 2011, 10:30 AM | #40 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
But it does matter, because you're only given one test result, and that result is positive. Any negatives have already been discarded. Your "population" that you are sampling from is all the positive results (accurate or not), NOT all the people. And because the probability of being a criminal is smaller than the probability of getting a false result, most of the positive results are false positives.
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|