LESSWRONG
LW

Conjunction Fallacy
Personal Blog

11

[SEQ RERUN] Conjunction Fallacy

by MinibearRex
1st Sep 2011
1 min read
0

11

Conjunction Fallacy
Personal Blog

11

New Comment
Moderation Log
More from MinibearRex
View more
Curated and popular this week
0Comments

Today's post, Conjunction Fallacy was originally published on 19 September 2007. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

 

Elementary probability theory tells us that the probability of one thing (we write P(A)) is necessarily greater than or equal to the conjunction of that thing and another thing (write P(A&B)). However, in the psychology lab, subjects' judgments do not conform to this rule. This is not an isolated artifact of a particular study design. Debiasing won't be as simple as practicing specific questions, it requires certain general habits of thought.


Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).

This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Kahneman's Planning Anecdote, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.

Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.

Mentioned in
7[SEQ RERUN] Conjunction Controversy (Or, How They Nail It Down)