[Probcogsci] Starting at 3PM Tomorrow (new time - this week only) Optimal Predictions in Everyday Cognition

[Vicente Malave]

We are going to start at 3 tomorrow (july 9). Unfortunately, this
means a few of you will miss it. Normal times resume next week.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Vicente Malave<vicente.malave at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks, turns out in my enthusiasm for Bayesian cognitive science I
> accidentally double-booked myself, and I have to be somewhere at 4.
> Are we okay with starting a little earlier? Either at 3 and have the
> full discussion, or at 3:30 and I'll just talk really fast. Let me
> know what works for you.
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Vicente Malave<vicente.malave at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Next week we will be meeting (still 4pm, natcomp conference room), and
>> I will lead discussion.
>>
>> Two weeks ago, Ben asked "Where do the priors come from"? -The best
>> way to answer this is to look at a situation where we can determine
>> the prior, and ask if people's decisions are consistent with that. The
>> main paper we will be focusing on is "Optimal Predictions in Everyday
>> Cognition" by Griffiths and Tenenbaum.
>> http://cocosci.berkeley.edu/tom/papers/predictions.pdf
>> The task is to predict how long an event will last, given 1 data point
>> (the current duration). In this case for most of the events (i.e.
>> baking a cake) they were able to get a good prior. Its a very short
>> and simple paper, and we will work through all the math in the
>> appendix.
>>
>> This paper was inspired by
>> Implications of the Copernican principle for our future prospects, by
>> JR Gott III, published in Nature as a "Hypothesis"
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v363/n6427/abs/363315a0.html
>> which estimates a number of interesting things using a the same
>> argument, including how long the journal Nature will exist, the
>> possibilities of colonizing the galaxy, and if SETI will find
>> extraterrestrial life. Its pretty interesting, but quite a tangent,
>> maybe we won't discuss this.
>>
>> Finally, when gathering these I found a recent paper by Mike Mozer,
>> Hal Pashler, and Hadjar Homaei (Cogsci Journal) directly contradicting
>> the optimal predictions paper. Their argument seems to be that
>> Griffiths and Tenenbaum have fit the aggregate prediction across
>> subjects. If you find yourself screaming out against the target
>> article, perhaps your criticisms will be contained here.
>> http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~mozer/papers/reprints/MozerPashlerHomaei2008.pdf
>>
>> So, for next week, read the "Optimal Predictions" paper, and come
>> prepared to discuss. Other readings are supplementary.
>> --
>> Vicente Malave
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Vicente Malave
>



-- 
Vicente Malave