I.e. "base-rate neglect" or "fallacy", etc. The concept, and examples, of "base rate" are pretty intuitive, IMO. And yet, somehow, considering how INCREDIBLY C

I.e. "base-rate neglect" or "fallacy", etc. The concept, and examples, of "base rate" are pretty intuitive, IMO. And yet, somehow, considering how INCREDIBLY CRUCIAL even the most basic understanding of "base rate" is to "critical thinking", they seem completely neglected in the vast majority of education. I'd argue, now, that we'd be far better off skipping crap like "integral rules for the cotangent function" (or whatever the current equivalent is) than skipping serious discussion and repeated allusions to the ubiquitous theme of "base rates" (and even "probability" and "statistics" in general - just having SOME feel for these) in interpreting, well, just about any ... putative "information". Further, I suspect that if we introduced kids to this kind of stuff when they were even 5, or 6, they'd pick it up far more easily than most adults, who have to wedge this often "unwelcome news" into their already rather rigid / solidified worldviews ... possibly confronting how 'wrong' of a perspective they've brought to many chains of reasoning etc... leading, often enough, to rejection of the unwelcome news / much more difficulty understanding it at all (often enough probably driven just by the 'subconscious' interfering with quite "getting it" ... but not in a way almost anyone can realize ... [i.e., why the hell they can't "get it" ... why some concept that seems simple enough is actually so slippery and like 'quicksand' in their minds ... something that might look clear enough 'on paper']).