B1 中級 104 分類 收藏
開始影片後,點擊或框選字幕可以立即查詢單字
字庫載入中…
回報字幕錯誤
Meet Lucy.
She was a math major in college,
and aced all her courses in probability and statistics.
Which do you think is more likely: that Lucy is a portrait artist,
or that Lucy is a portrait artist who also plays poker?
In studies of similar questions, up to 80 percent of participants
chose the equivalent of the second statement:
that Lucy is a portrait artist who also plays poker.
After all, nothing we know about Lucy suggests an affinity for art,
but statistics and probability are useful in poker.
And yet, this is the wrong answer.
Look at the options again.
How do we know the first statement is more likely to be true?
Because it's a less specific version of the second statement.
Saying that Lucy is a portrait artist doesn't make any claims
about what else she might or might not do.
But even though it's far easier to imagine her playing poker than making art
based on the background information,
the second statement is only true if she does both of these things.
However counterintuitive it seems to imagine Lucy as an artist,
the second scenario adds another condition on top of that, making it less likely.
For any possible set of events, the likelihood of A occurring
will always be greater than the likelihood of A and B both occurring.
If we took a random sample of a million people who majored in math,
the subset who are portrait artists might be relatively small.
But it will necessarily be bigger
than the subset who are portrait artists and play poker.
Anyone who belongs to the second group will also belong to the first–
but not vice versa.
The more conditions there are, the less likely an event becomes.
So why do statements with more conditions sometimes seem more believable?
This is a phenomenon known as the conjunction fallacy.
When we're asked to make quick decisions, we tend to look for shortcuts.
In this case, we look for what seems plausible
rather than what is statistically most probable.
On its own, Lucy being an artist doesn't match the expectations
formed by the preceding information.
The additional detail about her playing poker
gives us a narrative that resonates with our intuitions—
it makes it seem more plausible.
And we choose the option that seems more representative of the overall picture,
regardless of its actual probability.
This effect has been observed across multiple studies,
including ones with participants who understood statistics well–
from students betting on sequences of dice rolls,
to foreign policy experts predicting the likelihood of a diplomatic crisis.
The conjunction fallacy isn't just a problem in hypothetical situations.
Conspiracy theories and false news stories
often rely on a version of the conjunction fallacy to seem credible–
the more resonant details are added to an outlandish story,
the more plausible it begins to seem.
But ultimately, the likelihood a story is true
can never be greater than the probability that its least likely component is true.
提示:點選文章或是影片下面的字幕單字,可以直接快速翻譯喔!

載入中…

Can you outsmart this logical fallacy? - Alex Gendler

104 分類 收藏
林宜悉 發佈於 2020 年 4 月 16 日
看更多推薦影片
  1. 1. 單字查詢

    在字幕上選取單字即可即時查詢單字喔!

  2. 2. 單句重複播放

    可重複聽取一句單句,加強聽力!

  3. 3. 使用快速鍵

    使用影片快速鍵,讓學習更有效率!

  4. 4. 關閉語言字幕

    進階版練習可關閉字幕純聽英文哦!

  5. 5. 內嵌播放器

    可以將英文字幕學習播放器內嵌到部落格等地方喔

  6. 6. 展開播放器

    可隱藏右方全文及字典欄位,觀看影片更舒適!

  1. 英文聽力測驗

    挑戰字幕英文聽力測驗!

  1. 點擊展開筆記本讓你看的更舒服

  1. UrbanDictionary 俚語字典整合查詢。一般字典查詢不到你滿意的解譯,不妨使用「俚語字典」,或許會讓你有滿意的答案喔