You're right. Even when you're wrong!

monstrman · 11-01-2011, 09:14 PM

5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Think | Cracked.com

This is an article that basically is saying humans evolved reason and logic so that they can be more right than someone else... even when they are wrong. Because we like to win, that's why!

**Deku Trii** · 11-01-2011, 10:19 PM

I liked that article on Facebook earlier today. It's the first Cracked article for which I've done that, but I thought it was pretty worth sharing.

***Cosmonautical*** · 11-02-2011, 01:05 AM

I'm pretty aware of this trait of the human race, as I've had a healthy dose of it from others and occasionally myself over time. If you'd ever like to be considered a wise person, you simply have to allow for being wrong or the other guy not being the worst person imaginable.

I disagree with their talk about consideration for statistics, though, because they're not really acknowledging that statistics are aggregate from multiple instances. What one guy does with a gun at night is not the same thing another guy does, there are much more influential factors to be considered than an imagined line connecting two instances, comparable as we'd like them.

What's even more amusing is how we expand statistics over a larger slice of time, but declare then that later statistics are an example of changed probability of outcome.

Probability maths are applicable in certain instances, but they're generally retrospective. Using them to make an argument for the future, in the case of an individual or outsiders rather than the group they were taken from, is irrelevant and unhelpful.

monstrman · 11-02-2011, 06:23 PM

Yeah they kinda just glossed over the probability section with that whole example about how people would pay $20 to avoid a 99% chance of shock, or $7 to avoid a 1% chance of the same shock. I mean, I wouldn't pay $7 to avoid that. Hell, I'd pay maybe $.50. It's not like the shock is going to kill you anyway.

***Cosmonautical*** · 11-03-2011, 01:50 AM

Well, they're talking about the probability of the outcome of their study. Not its likelihood of overlap with those persons not included in the study.

To employ predictive probability, there are some serious guidelines you have to follow. Unfortunately there's no way to account for simply having a bad slice of data beside conducting further studies.

Of course, that sort of study in itself is assuming that based on our identifying as part of the same species is relevant, which in many instances beside the strictly medical, and even in medical instances, it is not.

Even in the strictly medical sense, we can direct a study in a way that makes that study ineffectual. For instance, in 100% of cases of those who were killed by legitimate medical practice, the participants were killed by the tried and true methods. Will you fit into this group? There are only two groups - those killed and those not. You might skew into the death group, in which case attempts to cure yourself result in death.

11-01-2011, 09:14 PM	#1
monstrman Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: LET'S SAAAAAVE THE WOOOORLD. Gender: Posts: 1,035 Thanks: 87 Thanked 53 Times in 42 Posts Blog Entries: 5	You're right. Even when you're wrong! 5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Think \| Cracked.com This is an article that basically is saying humans evolved reason and logic so that they can be more right than someone else... even when they are wrong. Because we like to win, that's why!

11-01-2011, 10:19 PM	#2
Deku Trii PP&R Mod Current Events Mod Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Texas Gender: Posts: 9,031 Thanks: 521 Thanked 1,099 Times in 583 Posts	I liked that article on Facebook earlier today. It's the first Cracked article for which I've done that, but I thought it was pretty worth sharing.

11-02-2011, 01:05 AM	#3
*Cosmonautical* Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 28,100 Thanks: 2,151 Thanked 5,338 Times in 2,433 Posts	I'm pretty aware of this trait of the human race, as I've had a healthy dose of it from others and occasionally myself over time. If you'd ever like to be considered a wise person, you simply have to allow for being wrong or the other guy not being the worst person imaginable. I disagree with their talk about consideration for statistics, though, because they're not really acknowledging that statistics are aggregate from multiple instances. What one guy does with a gun at night is not the same thing another guy does, there are much more influential factors to be considered than an imagined line connecting two instances, comparable as we'd like them. What's even more amusing is how we expand statistics over a larger slice of time, but declare then that later statistics are an example of changed probability of outcome. Probability maths are applicable in certain instances, but they're generally retrospective. Using them to make an argument for the future, in the case of an individual or outsiders rather than the group they were taken from, is irrelevant and unhelpful.

11-02-2011, 06:23 PM	#4
monstrman Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: LET'S SAAAAAVE THE WOOOORLD. Gender: Posts: 1,035 Thanks: 87 Thanked 53 Times in 42 Posts Blog Entries: 5	Yeah they kinda just glossed over the probability section with that whole example about how people would pay $20 to avoid a 99% chance of shock, or $7 to avoid a 1% chance of the same shock. I mean, I wouldn't pay $7 to avoid that. Hell, I'd pay maybe $.50. It's not like the shock is going to kill you anyway.

11-03-2011, 01:50 AM	#5
*Cosmonautical* Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 28,100 Thanks: 2,151 Thanked 5,338 Times in 2,433 Posts	Well, they're talking about the probability of the outcome of their study. Not its likelihood of overlap with those persons not included in the study. To employ predictive probability, there are some serious guidelines you have to follow. Unfortunately there's no way to account for simply having a bad slice of data beside conducting further studies. Of course, that sort of study in itself is assuming that based on our identifying as part of the same species is relevant, which in many instances beside the strictly medical, and even in medical instances, it is not. Even in the strictly medical sense, we can direct a study in a way that makes that study ineffectual. For instance, in 100% of cases of those who were killed by legitimate medical practice, the participants were killed by the tried and true methods. Will you fit into this group? There are only two groups - those killed and those not. You might skew into the death group, in which case attempts to cure yourself result in death.