Comment on The Scales of Justice, the Notebook of Rationality

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 05:23:11 GMT

I believe the way it worked out was that when they heard a particular design produced less toxic waste, they also assumed a reactor that produced less waste was less likely to melt down.

That's +1 for less waste and +1 for less chance of meltdown.

When they are then told that this same design has a higher chance of meltdown, they subtract one point for meltdown without subtracting for less waste, even though they did the inverse earlier.

So, the audience tallies like so: +1 (less waste) +1 (inferred for less meltdown) -1 (more meltdown) = +1

When they should have tallied like so: +1 (less waste) -1 (more meltdown) = 0

The net ends up being +1 for the reactor, instead of 0.

This results in a good feeling for the reactor, when in reality they shouldn't have felt positive or negative.

Discuss