You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

adamisom comments on [Infographic] A reminder as to how far the rationality waterline can climb (at least, for the US). - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: Logos01 22 November 2011 12:44PM

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

Comments (47)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: adamisom 16 January 2012 06:22:20PM *  0 points [-]

The most frightening thing isn't that 14% of Americans think sound travels faster than light. The most frightening thing is that if you flipped a coin to decide whether to believe that statement or its converse, you'd land on 'speed: sound > light' half the time, in which case zero evidence impinges on the decision... which means you could just as easily have randomly believed 'speed: light > sound'.

Thus, at least 28% of Americans have no clue.

It gets worse when, rather than being a binary choice, there are several "choices" of alternative beliefs.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 16 January 2012 06:37:57PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure this quite follows, as it isn't clear that the 14% were guessing randomly... they might have been operating from some systematically wrong model. But I agree that it's likely.

To be fair, I also often wonder whether the people who take these tests are just picking random answers because they aren't at all invested in the test. Back when I was taking neuropsych evaluations after my stroke, there were a number of questions intended to detect malingering; I would like to believe that tests like those cited here have similar "checksum" questions built in and that reported results would take that into account, but in fact I don't.

Comment author: adamisom 16 January 2012 10:56:40PM 0 points [-]

Yeah - good point. I did realize that people probably do operate from a systematically wrong model---why not? But I figured that there are probably at least as many operating from a systematically wrong model that just happens to give them the right answer. I figured that if you were just guessing, with minimal information or reasoning (as opposed to none), it would more likely be biased towards the right answer.