Well, in that case the rationality is low: one can’t even figure out that for given death rate others got to be very predominantly surviving similar threats, or successfully avoiding those threats at even earlier stage—the average ‘SA’ is apparently good enough.
Basing really strong results on really weak evidence (and generally overestimating strength of the evidence) seem to be a pervasive pattern here, though. Even in the cases where choice of prior is straightforward, such as for intelligence expressed as rarity; people either overcome some seriously low priors with some seriously subjective and error prone evidence, or maybe fail to even have priors.
Well, in that case the rationality is low: one can’t even figure out that for given death rate others got to be very predominantly surviving similar threats, or successfully avoiding those threats at even earlier stage—the average ‘SA’ is apparently good enough.
Basing really strong results on really weak evidence (and generally overestimating strength of the evidence) seem to be a pervasive pattern here, though. Even in the cases where choice of prior is straightforward, such as for intelligence expressed as rarity; people either overcome some seriously low priors with some seriously subjective and error prone evidence, or maybe fail to even have priors.