[Original image found at the MathWorks site (slogan: “Accelerating the pace of engineering and science”). It seemed too good not to use.]
I haven’t read the book in question (Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman), but this book review got it a spot in the queueueueue. Especially this bit:
Kahneman’s approach to psychology spurns heart-sinking tables and formulae in favour of short, intriguing questions that elegantly illustrate the ways our intuitions mislead us.
Take the famous “Linda question”: Linda is a single 31-year-old, who is very bright and deeply concerned with issues of social justice. Which of the following statements is more probable: a) that Linda works in a bank, or b) that Linda works in a bank and is active in the feminist movement? The overwhelming majority of respondents go for b), even though that’s logically impossible. (It can’t be more likely that both things are true than that just one of them is.) This is the “conjunctive fallacy”, whereby our judgment is warped by the persuasive combination of plausible details. We are much better storytellers than we are logicians.
We are much better storytellers than we are logicians. Reassuring news, if true, for anyone aspiring to write fiction!
By the way, the piling on of specific details also tends to make jokes funnier. A loaf of day-old Wonder Bread mistakenly shelved with the canned hams might be the starting point for a stand-up comic’s routine; a loaf of bread on the wrong shelf is just… dull.
For more information about the “conjunctive fallacy,” see this Wikipedia entry. There you’ll also learn about an opposing point of view, under the heading Gigerenzer (which is, alas, merely a person’s name and not a Clausewitzian military tactic).
Of course, as the image at the top of this post suggests, greater specificity doesn’t necessarily make a given utterance matter more. Ha.
marta says
I read that review and want to read the book. You might be interested in this TED Talk. I’ve used it my college prep class a few times.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html
John says
Wow. The description of that talk says:
And here’s the video itself:
Thank you!
John says
Btw, if you watch the video at the TED link which Marta provided, you can get subtitles in any of 30-some languages. :)
Jayne says
Kahneman’s book title makes me think of the overall slow movement: slow cooking, slow reading… I wonder if any of that thought process went into the title. Anyhoo, I’m pretty aware of the limits of my mental powers, especially when it’s late evening and I should be resting the brain, but I do find this fascinating and I will be reviewing the TED video and adding another read to my list.
Mighty fascinating stuff. I have to say though, when I read the Linda question, before looking at answers, I thought, well, what kind of options are these answers? ( a and b) How could one possibly surmise based on the given information? And then to find that the overwhelming majority of respondents go for b?! I wondered how they went for either and thought for a moment that I had missed something.
Phew, I guess I’m just a slow reader. ;) (Not like I understand any of this, though!)
John says
There’s a “slow movement”? Egad. What does it say about me if I tell you I’m behind the curve on the slow movement? :)
I attempted to pose “the Linda question” to The Missus on the way to work today. Unfortunately, I couldn’t remember how it went… told her something like, “Linda is a banker and a staunch feminist. Which is more likely: that she has an advanced degree, or that she has an advanced degree and is interested in social justice?” Something like that, but I got so tripped up in the exact wording that she, like you, said: What? What sort of questions are THEY?
I’d hate to believe that the Linda question “works” only because of a very specific way of wording it — like “the ‘-gry’ riddle,” the answer to which made me crazy because however I’d first encountered the question, it hadn’t been worded correctly. (I don’t remember that screwy wording, but I do remember that my answer was “gryphon.”)
And you know I’ll take a thoughtful, slow reader any day over one who reads like the wind and comprehends about that well, too, ha.
Jayne says
Well, I’m behind the curve on the “…gry” riddle. I guess we can’t keep up with everything now can we?
If you are buying local, fresh foods, supporting your local farmers and merchants, rather than buying at Walmart (purchasing items made in China or elsewhere outside of the U.S.), and, in general, interested in self-sustainment, clean, green environment, and sanity, then, whether you’ve been consciously aware of it or not, you are already a part of the slow movement. I am slowly making my way there. (I try.)
The riddle… perplexing. ;)
John says
I hope the riddle doesn’t become an obsession. It’s really some sadist’s idea of a riddle: people try to answer it in a way which makes sense, but the riddler’s just messing with their heads. It’s like another riddle, which goes something like, “I’m thinking of a word which you hear every day — which you yourself USE every day. How do you spell it?”
The answer to which is: i, t.
As you can see, the setup sentence in the riddle is there just for camouflage. It could be anything. To answer the riddle correctly, you focus on the actual question, probably experimenting with different emphases. For the -gry riddle, the question is: “What is the third word in the English language?” The answer to which is “language.”
See what I mean? I HATE it. :)
s.o.m.e. one's brudder says
All of this quickly brought to mind Dan Ariely and his books: http://danariely.com/the-books/. Gave this to the recently graduated nephew for his consumption a couple of Christmases ago.
John says
And how did you come across Ariely in the first place???
And did his books help the recently graduated nephew’s lingering respiratory ailment? *rimshot*
marta says
Dan Ariely also has a couple good TED Talks. Just so you know.
http://www.ted.com/speakers/dan_ariely.html
John says
I’m pretty sure I’ve asked you this before, but when on earth do you find time to listen to all these TED talks and other lengthy Web/video/audio presentations???
(I’ll stop asking how you REMEMBER them all! I mean, the time from brudder’s comment to yours wasn’t even 15 minutes — you couldn’t possibly have had time to research it: you had to have the knowledge RIGHT THERE in your head. But like I say, I’ll not ask you about it anymore. You’ve explained and explained, very patiently.)
marta says
Well, I watch them when I work on my art or grade papers. And I use TED Talks for my listening class, which means I go through the site looking for topics that interest me (often making something or grading papers, clicking on various sites and noting which ones I like), then I choose a few for class, probably listen again, read through the transcript to prepare vocabulary and discussion questions for my class. And after that I show the Talk to my class, listening to it once again. Usually my class listens to it twice–once without a transcript, having to take notes, and later with a transcript and detailed questions. I don’t use the same Talks every single semester, but I do come back to a few favorites every other semester or so. And sometimes I require students to teach a lesson based on a particular, so the Talk gets revisited yet again. Anyway, that’s how I come to remember most of the Talks.
There is nothing like teaching something to get it into your head.