4 ms·
> The way to reconcile those claims is to say that many of our statistical/estimation patterns are very bad. If studies like this one are taken as evidence of
by haberman 11y ago
> The way to reconcile those claims is to say that many of our statistical/estimation patterns are very bad.
If studies like this one are taken as evidence of a statistical mind, then non-statistical behavior has to be taken as evidence of a non-statistical mind. Otherwise we have a non-falsifiable theory.
Experiment shows mind behaving statistically: "mind is statistical."
Experiment shows mind behaving non-statistically: "mind is statistical, but this scenario exceeds its capabilities."
> which suggests that they might be employing an existing system consciously to get the bugs out.
I should clarify -- I have nothing against the idea that our minds employ statistical methods. In fact I'm sure they must.
I'm opposed to taking that kernel of truth and pushing a reductionist understanding of something extremely complex (the brain).
- taeric 11y agoDon't confuse non-statistical with non-rational. In particular, people that come to a different conclusion than you could just have different priors in their Bayesian model, but still be statistical in their intake of information. Though... I think I agree that this weakens the claim sufficiently to not be a notable claim anymore.