Thinking, Fast and Slow

15: Linda: Less is More
the role of heuristics: Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, “Extensional
Versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability
Judgment,” 
Psychological Review 90(1983), 293-315.
“a little homunculus”: Stephen Jay Gould, Bully for Brontosaurus (New
York: Norton, 1991).
weakened or explained: See, among others, Ralph Hertwig and Gerd
Gigerenzer, “The ‘Conjunction Fallacy’ Revisited: How Intelligent Inferences
Look Like Reasoning Errors,” 
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12
(1999): 275–305; Ralph Hertwig, Bjoern Benz, and Stefan Krauss, “The
Conjunction Fallacy and the Many Meanings of And,” 
Cognition 108

---

(2008): 740–53.
settle our differences: Barbara Mellers, Ralph Hertwig, and Daniel
Kahneman, “Do Frequency Representations Eliminate Conjunction
Effects? An Exercise in Adversarial Collaboration,” 
Psychological
Science 12 (2001): 269–75.
16: Causes Trump Statistics
correct answer is 41%: Applying Bayes’s rule in odds form, the prior odds
are the odds for the Blue cab from the base rate, and the likelihood ratio is
the ratio of the probability of the witness saying the cab is Blue if it is Blue,
divided by the probability of the witness saying the cab is Blue if it is
Green: posterior odds = (.15/.85) × (.80/.20) = .706. The odds are the ratio
of the probability that the cab is Blue, divided by the probability that the cab
is Green. To obtain the probability that the cab is Blue, we compute:
Probability (Blue) = .706/1. 706 = .41. The probability that the cab is Blue
is 41%.
not too far from the Bayesian: Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman,
“Causal Schemas in Judgments Under Uncertainty,” in 
Progress in Social
Psychology, ed. Morris Fishbein (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980), 49–72.
University of Michigan: Richard E. Nisbett and Eugene Borgida,
“Attribution and the Psychology of Prediction,” 
Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 32 (1975): 932–43.
relieved of responsibility: John M. Darley and Bibb Latane, “Bystander
Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility,” 
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 8 (1968): 377–83.