As humans are systematically biased toward believing that conjunctions are more likely than their conjuncts (at least in certain setting),
The experimental evidence for the conjunction fallacy does not support “systematically”. It looks to me like the effect comes from one of the conjoined events acting as an argument in favor of the other that the subjects had not considered when asked about it alone. If the experiment had asked for the probability that diplomatic relations break down between the Soviet Union and America and that there will be major flooding in California, I predict you would not see the effect. Really, I think that “conjunction fallacy” is a bad name, because it describes how the researchers can see that something must have gone wrong in the subjects’ reasoning, but it doesn’t describe what went wrong.
there’s a strong possibility of exponentially overestimating probabilities in the course of Fermi calculations.
Fermi calculations are done explicitly to account for the conjunction of individual events in the correct way. This again is not supported by the experiment which did not involve the subjects using Fermi calculations to prevent errors in probability theory.
there’s a strong possibility of exponentially overestimating probabilities in the course of Fermi calculations.
Fermi calculations are done explicitly to account for the conjunction of individual events in the correct way. This again is not supported by the experiment which did not involve the subjects using Fermi calculations to prevent errors in probability theory.
One way is to apply an affective bias or motivated reasoning to each of several parameters, knowing in each case which direction would boost the favored conclusion. This makes more difference with more variables to mess with, each with multiplicative effect.
Well, yes, if you start by writing on the bottom line the probability you want, and then fudge the individual events’ probabilities to get that desired outcome, you totally ruin the point of Fermi calculations. But I wouldn’t accuse anyone presenting a Fermi calculation of having done that unless there was some particular reason to suspect it in that case.
Fermi calculations are done explicitly to account for the conjunction of individual events in the correct way. This again is not supported by the experiment which did not involve the subjects using Fermi calculations to prevent errors in probability theory.
Yes, but sometimes one overestimates the probability of one of the given individual events on account of failing to recognize that it’s implicitly a conjunction.
Yes, but sometimes one overestimates the probability of one of the given individual events on account of failing to recognize that it’s implicitly a conjunction.
First of all, that is a completely separate argument that does not rescue or excuse your previous invalid argument.
Secondly, absent evidence that the overwhelming majority of Fermi calculations have this mistake, you should be pointing to a specific event in a specific Fermi calculation that is assigned too high a probability because it is implicitly a conjunction, not attempting a fully general counterargument against all Fermi calculations.
First of all, that is a completely separate argument that does not rescue or excuse your previous invalid argument.
What I was trying to say is that getting any of the factors exponentially wrong greatly affects the outcome and that this can easily occur on account of a hidden conjunction.
Secondly, absent evidence that the overwhelming majority of Fermi calculations have this mistake, you should be pointing to a specific event in a specific Fermi calculation that is assigned too high a probability because it is implicitly a conjunction, not attempting a fully general counterargument against all Fermi calculations.
I was not attempting to give incontrovertible argument; rather I was raising some points for consideration. Nor was I attempting giving a fully general counterargument against all Fermi calculations; as I said above
Note that I’m not casting doubt on the utility of Fermi calculations as a general matter
Most of the probabilities used in Fermi calculations about existential risk are unfalsifiable which makes it difficult to point to an indisputable example of the phenomenon that I have in mind.
Nor was I attempting giving a fully general counterargument against all Fermi calculations
You may not have been attempting to make a fully general counterargument, but you did in fact make an argument against Fermi calculations, without referring to any specific Fermi calculation, that fails to distinguish between good Fermi calculations and bad Fermi calculations.
The experimental evidence for the conjunction fallacy does not support “systematically”. It looks to me like the effect comes from one of the conjoined events acting as an argument in favor of the other that the subjects had not considered when asked about it alone. If the experiment had asked for the probability that diplomatic relations break down between the Soviet Union and America and that there will be major flooding in California, I predict you would not see the effect. Really, I think that “conjunction fallacy” is a bad name, because it describes how the researchers can see that something must have gone wrong in the subjects’ reasoning, but it doesn’t describe what went wrong.
Fermi calculations are done explicitly to account for the conjunction of individual events in the correct way. This again is not supported by the experiment which did not involve the subjects using Fermi calculations to prevent errors in probability theory.
One way is to apply an affective bias or motivated reasoning to each of several parameters, knowing in each case which direction would boost the favored conclusion. This makes more difference with more variables to mess with, each with multiplicative effect.
Well, yes, if you start by writing on the bottom line the probability you want, and then fudge the individual events’ probabilities to get that desired outcome, you totally ruin the point of Fermi calculations. But I wouldn’t accuse anyone presenting a Fermi calculation of having done that unless there was some particular reason to suspect it in that case.
Yes, but sometimes one overestimates the probability of one of the given individual events on account of failing to recognize that it’s implicitly a conjunction.
First of all, that is a completely separate argument that does not rescue or excuse your previous invalid argument.
Secondly, absent evidence that the overwhelming majority of Fermi calculations have this mistake, you should be pointing to a specific event in a specific Fermi calculation that is assigned too high a probability because it is implicitly a conjunction, not attempting a fully general counterargument against all Fermi calculations.
What I was trying to say is that getting any of the factors exponentially wrong greatly affects the outcome and that this can easily occur on account of a hidden conjunction.
I was not attempting to give incontrovertible argument; rather I was raising some points for consideration. Nor was I attempting giving a fully general counterargument against all Fermi calculations; as I said above
Most of the probabilities used in Fermi calculations about existential risk are unfalsifiable which makes it difficult to point to an indisputable example of the phenomenon that I have in mind.
You may not have been attempting to make a fully general counterargument, but you did in fact make an argument against Fermi calculations, without referring to any specific Fermi calculation, that fails to distinguish between good Fermi calculations and bad Fermi calculations.