How to Answer Kia Anarna's Question

"Anong mas masakit na pagkakamali: Yung Type 1 error wherein you conclude that a relationship exists when in fact it doesn't OR Type 2 error where there is really a relationship but you fail to recognize it."

In the context of statistical error in medical research, it is more dangerous to make Type 2 errors. In the context, however, of human relationships, particularly romantic ones, there seems to be a need to clarify reference points.

When asked, anong mas masakit, whose perspective are we considering? Now, the question seems to imply a subject who commits the error, namely, you. So the question may be understood as you committing both errors, independently, and comparing which hurts you more, since you are the reference point. In this case, I would pick Type 1, the opposite of "what'd hurt more" in the statistics context. It embodies that which we are told over and over again to guard against: assuming, a major cause of heartbreaks.

The question can also be understood to ask which of the errors produce more pain, regardless of point of view. The difficulty of answering such questions is the difficulty of measuring pain. Do we measure pain produced by two different instances involving different persons? Or do we measure the pain produced by the two instances in the same person? In measuring the latter emerges a question of which role that person is to assume. Shall she be the "committer" of the error or the receiver? Should her role in both situations be syncronized, that is, either "committer" in both type 1 and type 2, or receiver in both type 1 and type 2? Do we compute all combinations? How do we even measure pain?

What struck me about the few answers I watched people give was that most of them chose type 2 to hurt more, which I can't comprehend given the two senses and assumptions above. The only explanation I came up with thus far is that it's the situation with which they can relate.

[Edit] Another point of reference may be against whom the error is committed. The question would, then, be understood as which error would hurt you more when committed against you? To this, I choose type 2, under which being unappreciated and taken for granted falls.

Another point to be clarified is the nature of the relationship: it was easily assumed above that the relationship is desirable. It can be imagined, though, that the relationship is undesirable in which case, I imagine type 2 to be more painful. In those conditions, type 1 error realization produces relief while type 2 may be a mix of shock, shame, regret, along the lines of the discovery that your worst enemy is your flesh and blood.

Another assumption easily overlooked was which event caused the pain. It was carelessly assumed above that only the discovery of the error caused the pain when there could've been other sources such as the [edit] consequences of the error, the implications of the error, the consequences of the revelation of the error and the implications of the revelation of the error. Furthermore, to whom the error was known, whether it was just known to the committer, or to the receiver, or both, was neglected. Which would hurt more, then, would depend on the interplay of several factors, including those above, for whose further analysis I seem to lack the capacity.