Comment author: Viliam_Bur 13 November 2012 08:32:13AM *  3 points [-]

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.)

Comment author: nerfhammer 13 November 2012 06:15:02PM 0 points [-]

Rationalist subreddit

3 nerfhammer 13 November 2012 01:17AM

I'm experimenting with a new rationalist subreddit on reddit.com

/r/rationalisthmus

Starting with links populated from the planet rationalist data set - to which I've added about 50 new sources in the past few weeks.

Comment author: Kawoomba 20 September 2012 06:40:43AM 6 points [-]

Similar to your first video, here's the famous "count how often the players in white pants pass the ball" test (Simons & Chabris 1999).

Incredibly, if you weren't primed to look for something unexpected, you probably would't notice. Seen it work first hand in cogsci classes.

Comment author: nerfhammer 20 September 2012 07:58:44PM 4 points [-]

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.

New study on choice blindness in moral positions

73 nerfhammer 20 September 2012 06:14PM

Change blindness is the phenomenon whereby people fail to notice changes in scenery and whatnot if they're not directed to pay attention to it. There are countless videos online demonstrating this effect (one of my favorites here, by Richard Wiseman).

One of the most audacious and famous experiments is known informally as "the door study": an experimenter asks a passerby for directions, but is interrupted by a pair of construction workers carrying an unhinged door, concealing another person whom replaces the experimenter as the door passes. Incredibly, the person giving directions rarely notices they are now talking to a completely different person. This effect was reproduced by Derren Brown on British TV (here's an amateur re-enactment).

Subsequently a pair of Swedish researchers familiar with some sleight-of-hand magic conceived a new twist on this line of research, arguably even more audacious: have participants make a choice and quietly swap that choice with something else. People not only fail to notice the change, but confabulate reasons why they had preferred the counterfeit choice (video here). They called their new paradigm "Choice Blindness".

Just recently the same Swedish researchers published a new study that is even more shocking. Rather than demonstrating choice blindness by having participants choose between two photographs, they demonstrated the same effect with moral propositions. Participants completed a survey asking them to agree or disagree with statements such as "large scale governmental surveillance of e-mail and Internet traffic ought to be forbidden as a means to combat international crime and terrorism". When they reviewed their copy of the survey their responses had been covertly changed, but 69% failed to notice at least one of two changes, and when asked to explain their answers 53% argued in favor of what they falsely believed was their original choice, when they had previously indicated the opposite moral position (study here, video here).

Comment author: RichardHughes 20 September 2012 02:48:30PM 6 points [-]

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?

Comment author: nerfhammer 20 September 2012 05:00:09PM 2 points [-]

The video shows the mechanics of how it works pretty well.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 07 April 2012 01:11:02AM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: nerfhammer 08 April 2012 03:11:59AM 1 point [-]

What's the name of the principle that variance increases further from 50%?

Comment author: Protagoras 08 April 2012 12:55:40AM -1 points [-]

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.

Comment author: nerfhammer 08 April 2012 03:10:48AM 0 points [-]

75% choose program A

binomial variance problem

5 nerfhammer 06 April 2012 10:59PM

Found in an old Kahneman & Tversky paper:

There are two programs in a high school. Boys are a majority (65%) in program A, and a minority (45%) in program B. There is an equal number of classes in each of the two programs.

You enter a class at random, and observe that 55% of the students are boys. What is your best guess -- does the class belong to program A or to program B?

A Poisson process paradox

19 nerfhammer 06 April 2012 05:20AM

From Steven Pinker's latest book:

Suppose you live in a place that has a constant chance of being struck by lightning at any time throughout the year. Suppose that the strikes are random: every day the chance of a strike is the same, and the rate works out to one strike a month. Your house is hit by lightning today, Monday. What is the most likely day for the next bolt to strike your house?

continue reading »
In response to New front page
Comment author: nerfhammer 02 April 2012 10:57:31PM 0 points [-]

I, for one, really like it.

View more: Next