On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>wrote:
> I think the validation should be more in this style > 10 up to minus 7 is stupid > 1% is next to stupid > 20% a hard call > 50% a good chance and with some support very likely > 80% JUST DO IT A SURE THING > The last two just requires attention. > I know I am an optimist and that my comments are anything but science. > However, it is all basedon Pareto's law and it works in 80% of all cases. > Statistical odds is far different and they are not of any significance as > they are driven by mass-hysteria and are totally unpredictable as we learnt > the first lesson in statistics. Reason is that they mostly are presented > without the total numbers it is based on. If the first two have different > opinion then anything is possible. > The reall problem is that most percentages are derivated out of the odds . > A real evaluation and my numbers are ok if you are involved. Not involved > then it is gambling and I have heard that peope are winning the lottery so > who knows . . > This is a pretty good take on it. I agree 50% is a very very good chance considering the extremely world changing technology here. It's also important to keep in mind that my estimate is just one, the beginning of the conversation. What we need is a collection of estimates from various individuals each with a range of error and bias. We account for those, mix them all together, and come up with an amazingly accurate estimate. I'll be the first to admit, my error range is probably higher than most here, but my bias is probably much lower and I do have a proven history of being successful in this arena. It's like crowd sourcing a group of people guessing jellybeans in a jellybean jar.
