> maddening example of counter-intuitive probability.
Not how I'd describe it. The setup is mundane enough for people to just assume that their intuition will work fine. The difference between the naive and correct answers is too small to spot in a small-n dataset. And ~0% of the population is actually familiar with analyzing such situations, for their "intuition" to be applicable.
It's a bit like Gell-Mann amnesia - people are too quick to apply an easy cognitive strategy, when (in theory) they know enough to rule that strategy out.
Not how I'd describe it. The setup is mundane enough for people to just assume that their intuition will work fine. The difference between the naive and correct answers is too small to spot in a small-n dataset. And ~0% of the population is actually familiar with analyzing such situations, for their "intuition" to be applicable.
It's a bit like Gell-Mann amnesia - people are too quick to apply an easy cognitive strategy, when (in theory) they know enough to rule that strategy out.