> Why would there obviously be more feminist bank tellers than female bank tellers? No! You still aren't paying attention and at this point I think you might b

> Why would there obviously be more feminist bank tellers than female bank tellers? No! You still aren't paying attention and at this point I think you might be just trolling, but here's one more good faith response. To reiterate, the article brings up the interesting result that people think it's more likely that someone is a "feminist bank teller" than that she is a "bank teller". To be clear there are some number of bank tellers, and of them, some are feminist. There cannot be more people who are feminist and bank tellers than people who are simply bank tellers. The feminist ones are a subset of all bank tellers. So the probability that someone is both is less than or equal to the probability that someone is just a bank teller. If you know them well, and they go to marches and such and your ascertain that they are definitely feminist, then the probability that they are both is equal to (but not greater) than the probability that they're a bank teller.