So what is the point where its correct to bin the sensor as alarmist?
Pondering this I lean that the main takeaway is that if you “cry” anything then no amount of what you cry can make it effective for low-probablity events. Crying “there is a 0.001% chance of wolf” is in practise going to be nearly equivalent to communicating about 20% chance of wolf. But if you say “there is a 0.001% chance of wolf” maybe that works for 5% and if you whisper you can get under 1%.
The second is that people can disagree what prepardness thresholds are proper. Say that the village runs out 10 times in responce to 5% reports and then can only harvest half the crop for being exhausted from running all the time killing 20% people to starvation. As a wolf-expert I am not likely to be the most well versed on food shortage events. So when I make judgement calls on where it is better to be safe than sorry I am likely to be atleast somewhat ignorant. So even an honest private trade-off might not be be socially optimal. The problem disappears if the village thinks the fortifications for nothing are worth the effort.
The correct approach as a villager is to take the sensor as bayesean evidence. What is your prior that there is a wolf nearby right now? What is the probability that the boy would cry 5% wolf when there is or is not a wolf (hint: it’s probably not 5%/95%, and doesn’t even need to add up to 1)?
In villages where wolves are common, it probably shouldn’t change your estimate at all. In villages where wolves have never been a problem, it may move your estimate even higher than 5% (because the kid can be wrong in either direction, and someone even bothering to point it out is pretty unusual at all).
So what is the point where its correct to bin the sensor as alarmist?
Pondering this I lean that the main takeaway is that if you “cry” anything then no amount of what you cry can make it effective for low-probablity events. Crying “there is a 0.001% chance of wolf” is in practise going to be nearly equivalent to communicating about 20% chance of wolf. But if you say “there is a 0.001% chance of wolf” maybe that works for 5% and if you whisper you can get under 1%.
The second is that people can disagree what prepardness thresholds are proper. Say that the village runs out 10 times in responce to 5% reports and then can only harvest half the crop for being exhausted from running all the time killing 20% people to starvation. As a wolf-expert I am not likely to be the most well versed on food shortage events. So when I make judgement calls on where it is better to be safe than sorry I am likely to be atleast somewhat ignorant. So even an honest private trade-off might not be be socially optimal. The problem disappears if the village thinks the fortifications for nothing are worth the effort.
The correct approach as a villager is to take the sensor as bayesean evidence. What is your prior that there is a wolf nearby right now? What is the probability that the boy would cry 5% wolf when there is or is not a wolf (hint: it’s probably not 5%/95%, and doesn’t even need to add up to 1)?
In villages where wolves are common, it probably shouldn’t change your estimate at all. In villages where wolves have never been a problem, it may move your estimate even higher than 5% (because the kid can be wrong in either direction, and someone even bothering to point it out is pretty unusual at all).