This seems more like an underspecified question than a prediction difference. You and Ben (and Omega) have different criteria for your rankings. Or, I guess different factual data about what happened—maybe you misread a stat or something.
The reason you feel a dissonance is that you’re not noticing the difference between “rank of peak using my subjective and unspecified weighting”, which is not objectively testable against any future experience, vs “my prediction of what someone else would say to a different question using the same words”, which is resolvable.
I hear ya, but no, I don’t think it’s a criteria difference. Ben and I both are evaluating players based on the criteria of, roughly, how much that player helps you win a championship, or Championship Odds over Replacement Player (CORP). It’s a “real” disagreement.
Often times that isn’t the case though with these sorts of top 25 lists. For example, some people incorporate “floor raising”—making a bad team average—and not just “ceiling raising”.
Hmm. I’m not sure how to resolve our disagreement on this. When you say “roughly”, you’re acknowledging the lack of precision in your criteria, which is exactly the place I think your and Ben’s criteria differ.
Does it feel like if you built the calculator / trained the ranking model such that all the weights were visible, and all the inputs about Draymond Green’s (and all other players’) performances were agreed, and if your counterparts did the same, you’d be able to actually WANT to change your mind to be more correct, or at least identify the places where you disagree on definition/methodology?
Hmm. I’m not sure how to resolve our disagreement on this. When you say “roughly”, you’re acknowledging the lack of precision in your criteria, which is exactly the place I think your and Ben’s criteria differ.
Hm, yeah. It does seem a little tough to resolve.
My position is that Ben and I are using very similar criteria and when my model outputs a different ranking of Draymond than Ben’s ranking of 22, very little if any of that is because Ben and I are using different criteria.
It sounds like your position is that you worry that the criteria Ben and I are using differ in a pretty meaningful way, and that a big reason why we are ranking Draymond differently is because we are using different criteria. Does that seem correct?
If so, I suppose the way to resolve this would be for me to speak more about the criteria I am using and, since Ben isn’t here, for me to speak more about what I think the criteria is that Ben is using. Then try to diff them. I think that’d be diving relatively deeply into the domain of basketball which I find fun discuss but I’m not sure how interested you would be in that. What do you think?
Does it feel like if you built the calculator / trained the ranking model such that all the weights were visible, and all the inputs about Draymond Green’s (and all other players’) performances were agreed, and if your counterparts did the same, you’d be able to actually WANT to change your mind to be more correct, or at least identify the places where you disagree on definition/methodology?
If I’m understanding this correctly, yeah, I would want to change my mind. I think two people with the same inputs and weights would only disagree on things like criteria and definitions, not on anticipated experiences.
I don’t care enough about basketball to follow that object-level analysis. I do appreciate that the thought experiment of doing so seems to indicate that you believe there IS some objective thing (the inputs or the weighting) that you or they are incorrect about.
I think that is what I was pointing at, and in my mind dissolves our disagreement. I was probably over-weighting your line
But despite that being my guess, I still wouldn’t say that I agree with Taylor. There’s this voice inside me that wants to utter “I think you’re wrong, Ben”.
I took this to mean that you cognitively preferred your model, even though it differed from theirs. After our discussion, you may have only meant that your instincts are probably wrong, and they’re likely more correct than your feelings.
edit: which I guess means I should ask more directly—if you believe there is a more correct answer than yours, why don’t you want to hone your instincts and change your feelings?
This seems more like an underspecified question than a prediction difference. You and Ben (and Omega) have different criteria for your rankings. Or, I guess different factual data about what happened—maybe you misread a stat or something.
The reason you feel a dissonance is that you’re not noticing the difference between “rank of peak using my subjective and unspecified weighting”, which is not objectively testable against any future experience, vs “my prediction of what someone else would say to a different question using the same words”, which is resolvable.
I hear ya, but no, I don’t think it’s a criteria difference. Ben and I both are evaluating players based on the criteria of, roughly, how much that player helps you win a championship, or Championship Odds over Replacement Player (CORP). It’s a “real” disagreement.
Often times that isn’t the case though with these sorts of top 25 lists. For example, some people incorporate “floor raising”—making a bad team average—and not just “ceiling raising”.
Hmm. I’m not sure how to resolve our disagreement on this. When you say “roughly”, you’re acknowledging the lack of precision in your criteria, which is exactly the place I think your and Ben’s criteria differ.
Does it feel like if you built the calculator / trained the ranking model such that all the weights were visible, and all the inputs about Draymond Green’s (and all other players’) performances were agreed, and if your counterparts did the same, you’d be able to actually WANT to change your mind to be more correct, or at least identify the places where you disagree on definition/methodology?
Hm, yeah. It does seem a little tough to resolve.
My position is that Ben and I are using very similar criteria and when my model outputs a different ranking of Draymond than Ben’s ranking of 22, very little if any of that is because Ben and I are using different criteria.
It sounds like your position is that you worry that the criteria Ben and I are using differ in a pretty meaningful way, and that a big reason why we are ranking Draymond differently is because we are using different criteria. Does that seem correct?
If so, I suppose the way to resolve this would be for me to speak more about the criteria I am using and, since Ben isn’t here, for me to speak more about what I think the criteria is that Ben is using. Then try to diff them. I think that’d be diving relatively deeply into the domain of basketball which I find fun discuss but I’m not sure how interested you would be in that. What do you think?
If I’m understanding this correctly, yeah, I would want to change my mind. I think two people with the same inputs and weights would only disagree on things like criteria and definitions, not on anticipated experiences.
I don’t care enough about basketball to follow that object-level analysis. I do appreciate that the thought experiment of doing so seems to indicate that you believe there IS some objective thing (the inputs or the weighting) that you or they are incorrect about.
I think that is what I was pointing at, and in my mind dissolves our disagreement. I was probably over-weighting your line
I took this to mean that you cognitively preferred your model, even though it differed from theirs. After our discussion, you may have only meant that your instincts are probably wrong, and they’re likely more correct than your feelings.
edit: which I guess means I should ask more directly—if you believe there is a more correct answer than yours, why don’t you want to hone your instincts and change your feelings?
Gotcha. Yeah with that line I indeed meant that I have more trust in Taylor’s judgement than my own instincts.