Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Conjunction Controversy (Or, How They Nail It Down) - Less Wrong

26 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 September 2007 02:41AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (22)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 20 September 2007 07:19:07PM 11 points [-]

Senthil, Gigerenzer is one of the primary critics of this experiment, but my understanding is that in the larger field his critiques are widely considered to have been refuted by further experiments.

More than half the subjects still committed the conjunction fallacy when they were asked to bet. If people are betting on similarities instead of probabilities, if doctors are treating similarities instead of probabilities, that is not a "misunderstanding" that explains away the experimental result. It IS the representativeness heuristic and conjunction fallacy!

Also, the conjunction fallacy has been replicated in many different formats besides the Linda experiment, as discussed today and yesterday. Why are people just ignoring this? Do they feel that if they come up with some arguable critique of the Linda experiment, that excuses them from any further work? That they don't have to explain all the other experiments?

I'm starting to get that feeling of frustration again. It doesn't excuse the subjects if they "misinterpreted" the experimental instructions, because they are misinterpreting real life the same way. More than half of them bet on the conjunction fallacy. Understanding exactly how someone makes a mistake does not mean it is not a mistake. They still lose the bet. The patient still dies. Am I making sense here?