7 ms·
I think almost everyone threw a dice quite a few times while playing board games.
by 331c8c71 22d ago
I think almost everyone threw a dice quite a few times while playing board games.
- wongarsu 22d agoMaybe people would have a better understanding of percentages if 20-sided dice were used more. "This has a 95% chance to succeed" -> roll a d20, anything but 1 is a success Meanwhile 6-sided dice don't map to nice numbers, and having two dice makes the maths even harder to intuit
- 331c8c71 21d agoI think 1/2 and 1/3 are quite nice as far as numbers go! Also 2/36 = 0.5555... is not that far from 5%
- wongarsu 21d agoBut (assuming two dice rolled at the same time) 2/36 is something like "roll a five and a six" or "roll either a pair of sixes or a pair of fives". Neither of which is quite as intuitive or commonly used in game design as "using one d20, roll a natural 20"
- mr_mitm 22d agoAnd yet they struggle with the abstract concept. They'll wonder why the candidate with a projected 20% chance of winning won. They won't know what to do with the information of a 70% chance of rain tomorrow. "Either it will rain or it won't, which is it!" Perhaps it's the frequentist approach that comes more natural than the Bayesian approach, who knows. This isn't my original thought, by the way. Someone wrote more about it here: https://towardsdatascience.com/humans-are-bad-at-probability-834980e719a3/ https://towardsdatascience.com/humans-are-bad-at-probability...
- meetingthrower 21d agoNobody understands Bayesian approach. Look at Covid -- people FREAKED out when we updated guidance based on learning new information.