The article presents the following experimental premise:
“Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken
and very bright. She majored in philosophy.
As a student, she was deeply concerned with
issues of discrimination and social justice,
and also participated in antinuclear
demonstrations.”
Then they asked the subjects which was more
probable:
(A) Linda is a bank teller
or
(B) Linda is a bank teller and
is active in the feminist
movement.
This example is bullshit, for several reasons.
We have several known personality attributes provided in the example, and all of them relate to the subjective opinions of an individual and are designed to provide belief in the potential for associations with similar political alignments.
Then we're provided with 2 choices, and each choice couples a previously unknown detail to the individual described, regarding occupation, with no opportunity to exclude the occupation.
We are asked to make an assumption about the individual, based on previously provided information, and guide the formation of our assumption with intuition.
According to The Letter Of The Law, the example asks the respondent to parse probability ONLY, and then penalizes according to the transitive property of equality, because technical interpretations of probability state that, when information has not been previously presented, an individual trait in isolation, is more probable, than a coupling of rare traits.
Which one is more probable? Oh wait, you're
wrong because you misinterpreted our
context-sensitive definition of the word
"probable." You lose.
According to
The Spirit Of The Law, the example appears to present the respondent with a set of details, and prompt the respondent with a request to parse the details and demonstrate a display of reading comprehension, such that they show they've observed the relevant details, and drawn a conclusion by associating multiple cultural norms of common political alignment.
With the presentation of choice B, and
based on other personal details about
Linda, do you feel it likely that Linda
could be a feminist? Keep in mind that
we've offered clues to her political
alignment, and these may play a role
in the correct answer.
The example reads as:
Given: [0, A, 2, C, 4]
Is [E] likely?
or
Does [E, 6] make more sense?
But claims to present:
Given: [0, A, 2, C, 4]
Which is most probable?
> [$]
or
> [$, 99]
So, the example is an experiment in providing a loaded question, and then changing the context of expected interpretation, and then declaring proof that people are prone to misinterpretation.
The example is like asking someone if they were happy about who won The World Series, and then telling them you're not inviting them to a soccer game, because of their opinions on baseball.
The example the authors have provided is designed to promote assumptions, without providing adequate context for expectations, and that is fucking stupid.
We have several known personality attributes provided in the example, and all of them relate to the subjective opinions of an individual and are designed to provide belief in the potential for associations with similar political alignments.
Then we're provided with 2 choices, and each choice couples a previously unknown detail to the individual described, regarding occupation, with no opportunity to exclude the occupation.
We are asked to make an assumption about the individual, based on previously provided information, and guide the formation of our assumption with intuition.
According to The Letter Of The Law, the example asks the respondent to parse probability ONLY, and then penalizes according to the transitive property of equality, because technical interpretations of probability state that, when information has not been previously presented, an individual trait in isolation, is more probable, than a coupling of rare traits.
According to The Spirit Of The Law, the example appears to present the respondent with a set of details, and prompt the respondent with a request to parse the details and demonstrate a display of reading comprehension, such that they show they've observed the relevant details, and drawn a conclusion by associating multiple cultural norms of common political alignment. The example reads as: But claims to present: So, the example is an experiment in providing a loaded question, and then changing the context of expected interpretation, and then declaring proof that people are prone to misinterpretation.The example is like asking someone if they were happy about who won The World Series, and then telling them you're not inviting them to a soccer game, because of their opinions on baseball.
The example the authors have provided is designed to promote assumptions, without providing adequate context for expectations, and that is fucking stupid.