Talk:Conjunction fallacy

message: Currently, this is confused:
(a) I assume it should read 85% choose 2, or there is no point here
(b) the later wording 'people get this problem' is ambiguous - could mean people do see the point.
Charles Matthews 18:01, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes I fixed these after re-reading. --Taak 18:28, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

message: Pr(A \land B) = Pr(A)Pr(B|A) \leq Pr(A) 
I didn't post it properly merely because I don't know if this is the right place for it.  If you all want it, there it is.  "Pr(B|A)" is read "The probability of B given A".  Mo Anabre 17:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Assumption of Independence 

message: There is no reason to call this a paradox, as the material requirements for a paradox do not occur.  While it is true that people would not expect that each representative (but less than certain) conjunction would reduce the probability; the fact that the probability itself is diminished is not paradoxical, as demonstrated easily in the example given on this page.  In the mathematical proof of the example, it is explicitly demonstrated that no such paradox occurs.
Just because something violates the expectations of the reader does not make it a paradox, but rather sets it up closer to irony, than a paradox. --Puellanivis 04:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Paradox here 

message: Is it just me, or does the inequality 'Pr(A) > Pr(A^B) < Pr(B)' look un-mathematical, due to the conflicting directions of the inequalities?  When you write 'A<B<C', this is valid because A<B, B<C, and A<C all hold simultaneously; but in a form like 'A>B<C', what implication does that make for A and C?  I think the statement should be changed to read that the probability of the conjunction is less than or equal to the MINIMUM of the set {P(A), P(B)}.
: There's another problem too. Just before the formula, the article links to Boole's_inequality, which describes a completely different (albeit similar sounding) concept.129.2.167.219 (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay so I just rewrote the inequality using two different formula, and removed the link, hopefully the meaning is still clear. This article could use some extra cleaning up, but I don't know *anything* about the quantum stuff that is written below the break. I'm not sure what someone could do to make it fit in better with the rest of the article.129.2.167.219 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  '...this inequality...' 

message: It seems as if this fallacy is wrong, and I wonder if this criticism has come up: people are assuming that they are asking what the probability is that Linda is just a bank teller given that she majored in philosophy and is concerned about issues. Also, that "and" or "or" misunderstanding is likely as well. I'd like to see some studies cited, because clearly there's a lot of room for criticism here. It's likely that if you looked at female philosophy majors, the probability that these women are involved in feminism is higher than the probability that they are not. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 19:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pr(Linda is just a bank teller and not involved in feminism|Linda was a philosophy major) 

message: I don't think it's necessarily true that the conjunction of two events is always less/equal to the probability of either occuring alone. For instance, which is more likely:
a) I get struck in the stomach very hard. 
b) I get struck in the stomach very hard and my stomach hurts.
the problem with this analogy is that a is related to b. i agree with you, but the analogy is a false analogy. make a unrelated to b and then test your argument.
Clearly, b) is more likely, right? I understand the import of the experiment, I was just confused by this sentence. Or is a) not meant to imply that my stomach doesn't hurt?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.190.75 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what to make of the above dialog, but yes, it's always true. It should be easy to see why it's always at least equal. If someone is "a banker, and X" then clearly they must also be "a banker." It's not the same as comparing "a banker and X" to "a banker and not X," which is a separate question entirely. 129.2.167.219 (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "However, mathematically, the probability of two events occurring together (in "conjunction") will always be less than or equal to the probability of either one occurring alone." 

message: Does the section on Quantum ... qualify as OR?  I see that, in the page's history, a user who shares a name with the author of the arxiv reference has added that section.  Besides, it doesn't appear to add anything beyond the original mathematical discussion.  I say this from the point of view of someone who has taken graduate classes in both areas (probability, quantum mechanics).  99.155.53.151 (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that it contradicts the mainstream treatment of the effect, is based on a WP:SPS and violates WP:COI. It needs to go. A more mainstream explanation would invoke Attribute substitution. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR? 

message: Simply put, the two possibilities are not independent. The Soviet Union invading Poland modifies the likelihood of the United States breaking off relationship with the Soviet Union. Suppose the unmodified chance of the United States breaking off ties with the Soviet Union to be 1%, while the chance of the Soviet Union invading Poland to be 50%, and the chance of the United States breaking relations with the Soviet Union given that the Soviet Union invaded Poland to be 90%. 90% x 50% is 45%, much higher than the unmodified chance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.102.8 (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: the "given that" is not part of the logic of the question. it says breaking off relations "and" an invasion of poland. It's a conjunction, not a conditional. Taak (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Taak has it right here. The wording in the article is correct. Going by all the comments in this Talk page, it looks like there is a major obstacle to people understanding the conjunction fallacy, which is the conjunction fallacy itself: we show people examples of fallacious reasoning, but they don't see the problem because that's the way they're used to thinking. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Relations Example Not an Example 

message: The page List of Fallacies categorizes the Conjunction fallacy a formal fallacy while here it is listed as an informal fallacy. Which one is it?
155.105.7.43 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  formal or informal fallacy? 

message: Base rate fallacy is not the same thing as conjunction fallacy, though base rate fallacy may be one explanation for conjunction fallacy. Conjunction fallacy involves saying that A&B is more likely than A but this is not part of the definition of base rate fallacy. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger discussion 

message: "Linda is a bank teller and activist" is chosen because being an activist is important and actually relates to one's opinion of her whereas being a bank teller or not is sort of irrelevant to just about any discussion about Linda; a lot less relevant than her other info. The bank teller stuff is just ignored because it's boring.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benvhoff (talk • contribs) 10:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other possibility 

message: Currently it states "The die will be rolled 20 times". This conflicts with the presented series of length 5 or length 6. I suggest to reword to "The die will be rolled several times". --tomaschwutz (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in section Other demonstrations? 

message: Can you explain this edit? User:Deuteroscopy found what seems to be vandalism and removed it. You not only undid that edit; you posted a vandalism warning on the user's Talk page. Removing vandalism isn't "unconstructive editing". Have you any evidence that the term "Huang's theory of conditions" isn't an invention by the anonymous editor who added it?  thanks for taking action to improve the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Huang's theory of conditions"