> "People" aren't bad at stuff. On average, they're about average at it, which is tautologically true. That is absolutely not true, at least not in the way any

> "People" aren't bad at stuff. On average, they're about average at it, which is tautologically true. That is absolutely not true, at least not in the way anyone means. Humans are "terrible" at remembering numbers. The average-ability human has average ability, obviously, that is tautological. But as a whole, humans are not good at remembering numbers. A reasonable question is, what does "good" even mean? Well that depends on context. We are worse at remember numbers than computers are. We are worse at remember numbers than the same human, but with pen and paper. We are worse than some animals. Obviously, there is no objective "good" or "bad". We are better than some animals, etc. But when someone says that humans are terrible at evaluating risk, they usually imply that we are bad at it as compared to risk evaluation done with real calculations, and that is internally consistent. And that is something that IS somewhat objective, and most humans fail as compared to this objective standard (e.g., lots of contradictions in risk decisions).