Surprisingly cogent meditation on probabilistic thinking in the NYT. Takeaways: 1. People round probabilities up to 100% or down to 0%. 2. People call probability “wrong” if <50% events happen 3. People need a story to take <50% scenarios seriouslyhttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/24/opinion/2017-wrong-numbers.html …
-
-
Replying to @vgr
This from prospect theory (Kahneman and tversky) gives a nice view of how humans perceive probabilities. Its why people play the lottery and are afraid of airplane travel.pic.twitter.com/6mrLoSlwnl
2 replies 18 retweets 61 likes -
Replying to @sterrett_sc @vgr
Since this was far and away my most popular tweet, here is some more - quantitative assessments of qualitative probabilities. I was surprised by the spread. Note also local maxima near 0 and 1 present in most
@vgrpic.twitter.com/QaIJnkvWy4
2 replies 12 retweets 21 likes
Replying to @sterrett_sc
I recall an old paper that talked about probability perception language if I can find it... from like the 60s
10:06 AM - 27 Dec 2017
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.