= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
This is "inattention blindness". Choice blindness is sort of like the opposite; in inattention blindness you don't notice something you're not paying attention to, in choice blindness you don't notice something which you are paying attention to.
It strikes me that performing this experiment on people, then revealing what has occurred, may be a potentially useful method of enlightening people to the flaws of their cognition. How might we design a 'kit' to reproduce this sleight of hand in the field, so as to confront people with it usefully?
The video shows the mechanics of how it works pretty well.
Um, B, but only by a hair. 55 is equidistant between 45 and 65, but the variance is smaller for A because 65 is farther from 50 than 45 is, so measured by the relevant standard deviations, 55 is closer to 45 than 65. (Making the obviously obvious assumption that children are assigned to classes independent of gender.)
I had to google up the source to find out why the "obvious" answer is supposed to be A.
What's the name of the principle that variance increases further from 50%?
It looks like I approached the problem in exactly the same way you did. I'm very curious as to how common it is for people to think A is more likely; it really doesn't seem obvious to me either.
Holy shmorkies. Thanks and congratulations!
Glad you like it. There are zillions more where that came from
Re: publishing.
Self-publishing is easy. As for publishing with a mainstream press, I recommend How to Sell, Then Write Your Nonfiction Book.
What if I want to write, then sell it? Something that might be achievable could be like what Skeptic's Dictionary or You Are Not So Smart did, they started out as websites that slowly filled out and were ultimately published as books.
(Why isn't there a Singularity Institute Press?)
I wanted to write a compendium of biases in book form. I didn't know how to get a book published, though.
Silver lining: in the long run, there's a decent chance more people will read what you wrote on Wikipedia than if you put it in a book.
Vastly, vastly more likely.
Everyone once in awhile someone sends me a link to an article on wikipedia saying I would find it interesting... and as a matter of fact, I found it especially interesting: I wrote it!
Or, I added a quote to Daniel Kahneman's page that has since appeared in almost every bio of Kahneman that I've seen since. For example, David Brooks wrote a column on Kahneman a few months ago and used the same exact quote I added, so that's millions of people indirectly.
Boggles the mind, really.
Unsolicited website advice: it changes backgrounds far too quickly for me to read and look at pictures comfortably. There should be some obvious way to get it to stop moving.
Criticism is totally fair. I was getting frustrated with it, so I decided to get something done quickly that I could replace later. So, there are flaws.
It's supposed to stop cycling if you mouseover it.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Dozen new links daily, 99% of them submitted by the same person, 99% of them having zero comments... what exactly was the point? Why don't you start a blog instead? Or a Twitter account?
(Note: The last suggestion was serious. Twitter is exactly for this: many links from the same person, without discussion.)
Twitter account: http://twitter.com/plntrationalist