The point of the conjunction fallacy is that, under specific circumstances, people’s ability to estimate probability will reliably misfire, i.e. people are biased.
This does not require that people’s estimates always misfire. You seem to have some odd personal stake in this; the conjunction fallacy is not some great criticism of people’s moral worth. It is merely an observation that the human brain does not function optimally, much like the existence of blind spots.
I can think of two ways this article represents a coherent point: first, it is pointing out that we do not always miscalculate. This is an obvious fact and does not conflict with the bias in question.
Second, you might be complaining that the circumstances under which people exhibit this bias are so unlike reality a to be irrelevant. You provide no evidence and virtually no argument to this effect. Indeed, people make off-the-cuff estimates without consulting the laws of probability all the time. If your point is that it is of no practical consequence, you did not get anywhere near demonstrating that.
Also, you said that a study is unbiased only if it confirms your view, then asked for unbiased studies contradicting your view. I hope the problem there is now apparent to you.
The point of the conjunction fallacy is that, under specific circumstances, people’s ability to estimate probability will reliably misfire, i.e. people are biased.
This does not require that people’s estimates always misfire. You seem to have some odd personal stake in this; the conjunction fallacy is not some great criticism of people’s moral worth. It is merely an observation that the human brain does not function optimally, much like the existence of blind spots.
I can think of two ways this article represents a coherent point: first, it is pointing out that we do not always miscalculate. This is an obvious fact and does not conflict with the bias in question.
Second, you might be complaining that the circumstances under which people exhibit this bias are so unlike reality a to be irrelevant. You provide no evidence and virtually no argument to this effect. Indeed, people make off-the-cuff estimates without consulting the laws of probability all the time. If your point is that it is of no practical consequence, you did not get anywhere near demonstrating that.
Also, you said that a study is unbiased only if it confirms your view, then asked for unbiased studies contradicting your view. I hope the problem there is now apparent to you.