4 ms·
> Then they asked the subjects which was more probable: (A) Linda is a bank teller or (B) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. I don
by cJ0th 10y ago
> Then they asked the subjects which was more probable: (A) Linda is a bank teller or (B) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
I don't see how either guess is generally less likely then the other one. I'd say it depends rather on your mental framework whether you choose A or B. Therefore, I'd argue a frequentist would rather choose answer A whereas a Bayesian would be inclined to choose answer B.
The difference between rationality and intelligence imo lies in how you deal with unknown Unknowns. A person who is merely rational wouldn't consider them whereas a intelligent person would have the ability to deal with them in some way.
Take the infamous Westbro family for example. In Louis Theroux's movie they came across as rational human beings assuming that their world view is correct. Indeed they appeared to have a happy family life. If everyone would (want to) follow their rules than the world would probably work. They, however, fail to realize that they haven't found a magic bullet and that other people are able to lead equally fulfilling lifes. Their attempts of "saving" these people are bound to be a futile waste of time and thus I wouldn't consider them as intelligent.
- mehwoot 10y agoI don't see how either guess is generally less likely then the other one. How could A possibly be less likely than B?? The occurrences of B are a strict subset of A, there is no possible way B could happen more frequently.
- cJ0th 10y agoMaybe I am a bit confused but I just meant to imply that A and B could be considered equally probable if you're a Bayesian who has absolute confidence that she's the kind of person who is active in the feminist movement.
- bonoboTP 10y ago100% now is 100% forever, in the Bayesian framework. If a Bayesian agent is absolutely certain that she is active in the feminist movement, it would mean that absolutely no evidence could convince it of the contrary. Even if we learn that she was kidnapped and forced to work in, say, Saudi Arabia as a bank teller where she's forbidden from feminism, even then, the Bayesian agent would have to still stay at 100% confidence that she's active in feminism.