Not a criticism but I thought this post was going to be about people having a bias towards supporting the underdog, whoever they perceive that to be. I think this bias also exists, though it’s not universal.
These go together. People support the underdog, therefore everyone claims to be the underdog to get support. But there’s a contradiction there. “Help us, we’re losing!” isn’t much of an appeal, especially when you have to keep on professing to be losing even when you’re winning.
Underdogs lose. If you win, you weren’t the underdog. David with ranged weaponry was stronger than Goliath who knew only close combat.
Not a criticism but I thought this post was going to be about people having a bias towards supporting the underdog, whoever they perceive that to be. I think this bias also exists, though it’s not universal.
These go together. People support the underdog, therefore everyone claims to be the underdog to get support. But there’s a contradiction there. “Help us, we’re losing!” isn’t much of an appeal, especially when you have to keep on professing to be losing even when you’re winning.
Underdogs lose. If you win, you weren’t the underdog. David with ranged weaponry was stronger than Goliath who knew only close combat.
Is it not more like, p(underdog_loses) > 0.5? Sometimes the thing with lesser probability happens even if the prediction was well-calibrated.