In order to explain the conjunction fallacy (or other biases) LoLE is only any use if it does lead to actually conserving effort. (On the specific matter at hand; of course they may put effort into other things.) The alleged pattern is (unless I’ve badly misunderstood):
You ask me “which of these two things is more likely?”
If I think carefully through the options, I will see that it’s more likely that Linda is a librarian simpliciter than that she’s a feminist librarian.
But I don’t do that, because I want to look like I’m doing everything effortlessly.
Instead I use some simple quick heuristic that lets me look effortless.
Unfortunately that leads me to the wrong answer.
And in this sequence of events, it’s essential that I actually do put in less effort. If instead I had some way of looking as if I’m making no effort while actually doing the careful thinking that would get me the right answer, then I would get the right answer.
What am I missing here?
[EDITED to add:] Also: if the question at hand is why psychologists don’t appeal to the LoLE as an explanation for the conjunction fallacy, and the answer (as I suggest) is that they already have what looks like an obvious explanation in terms of actually conserving effort, then it doesn’t really matter that much whether the LoLE involves actual effort-conservation or merely apparent effort-conservation, no?
In order to explain the conjunction fallacy (or other biases) LoLE is only any use if it does lead to actually conserving effort. (On the specific matter at hand; of course they may put effort into other things.) The alleged pattern is (unless I’ve badly misunderstood):
You ask me “which of these two things is more likely?”
If I think carefully through the options, I will see that it’s more likely that Linda is a librarian simpliciter than that she’s a feminist librarian.
But I don’t do that, because I want to look like I’m doing everything effortlessly.
Instead I use some simple quick heuristic that lets me look effortless.
Unfortunately that leads me to the wrong answer.
And in this sequence of events, it’s essential that I actually do put in less effort. If instead I had some way of looking as if I’m making no effort while actually doing the careful thinking that would get me the right answer, then I would get the right answer.
What am I missing here?
[EDITED to add:] Also: if the question at hand is why psychologists don’t appeal to the LoLE as an explanation for the conjunction fallacy, and the answer (as I suggest) is that they already have what looks like an obvious explanation in terms of actually conserving effort, then it doesn’t really matter that much whether the LoLE involves actual effort-conservation or merely apparent effort-conservation, no?