Comments by "snuffeldjuret" (@snuffeldjuret) on "Can you outsmart this logical fallacy? - Alex Gendler" video.

  1.  @neuron2912  it is not about understanding statistical probability and logic though, it is about interpreting language. Interpreting language is tricky, especially as not everyone speaks a language perfectly and no language is perfect. I wolud not say taht you cna't unedstrand Egnilsh if you can inertrpet tihs seetnnce.
    5
  2.  @TosiakiS  doing the lords work :D.
    4
  3.  @free_h2o142  "It's more likely that she doesn't play poker than that she does play poker," lol, you can't say that :P.
    3
  4.  @lincolnducke  interpret information and interpret question are two different things. We ask these kind of questions in mathematics education all the time, but we avoid such ambiguities. E.g. you have a bunch of colored numbers in a bowl, you draw one at random. What is most probable, you draw a "3" or you draw a "red 3"?
    3
  5.  @rttrttyan  people interpret it as: A: Portrait artist that does not play poker. B: Portrait artist that does play poker. It is not the only reason why people get it wrong though, but his is a reason that is separate from the actual logical fallacy.
    2
  6.  @peteMickeal33  OP didn't miss the point. He/She was spot on in describing where the video goes wrong.
    2
  7.  @hunger4wonder  we should not involve "if someone says..." in this, as that becomes about how people lie about things, not about how things are. Usually, too little or too much detail are indicators of lying as far as I know :P.
    2
  8.  @lincolnducke  think of this: "A smartphone is a phone that also has internet" This is how language is used. An artist that also plays poker is put in contrast to an artist that does not play poker when it is expressed that way. Drop the "also" and I bet you'll see a different. I am almost so curious that I'd do the study myself :).
    2
  9.  @fica1137  no one is assuming all of them do, but from my experience I would be surprised if 50% or more do. It depends 100% on how you define "plays poker" though, which makes this question useless.
    1
  10.  @SasukeUchiha-ss8lb  because the image shows it. There is no ambiguity about poker cards on the left image, there are just no cards. Poker cards shows it is a poker player, just like the painter outfit etc. shows it is a painter.
    1
  11.  @free_h2o142  "it's more likely that she doesn't play poker than that she does play poker" how on earth could you know that? Also, how do you define "plays poker"?
    1
  12. @Rowan Nowicki we have more info about Lucy though, so we have to take that into account when we speculate about her habits. Also, how do you define "do not play poker"? You have no idea how frequently people who have the same characteristics as her play poker. One indication you do not know this is that you just said "most people do not play poker", you didn't quantify it.
    1
  13.  @pobretaoricasso6769  I know that is the point the video is trying to make (poorly, I might add), but that is not what we are talking about here :).
    1
  14.  @pobretaoricasso6769  we were talking about if it is more likely that an artist-statistician plays poker than not.
    1
  15. that "misunderstanding" is also driven by the visual representation, maybe to that extent I am not sure if I want to call it misinterpretation or miscommunication.
    1
  16.  @winkbrace  is it really intuition if it is all about interpreting language? If most people interpret language this way, shouldn't the official language be like this, and the fallacy is then described as the people who interpret option 2 as a subset of option 1? :P
    1
  17. bingo
    1
  18.  @jnerdsblog  they also had a picture, one with poker cards and one without.
    1
  19.  @franekkkkk  or understanding something correctly, that is presented wrongly.
    1
  20.  @jnerdsblog  but that isn't the fallacy describe though, right?
    1
  21. I'd go for the second one because I don't think any human has ever been able to fly :P. I have dreams about how I can fly though, but I have to flap my arms really hard and fast :D.
    1
  22. how "who also plays poker" is said at 0:22 implies that option 1 is a non poker playing Lucy. 1. Artist 2. Artist who plays poker isn't going to be interpreted the same way as 1. Artist 2. Artist who also plays poker adding "also" in there implies that something is added. If artist already could play poker, nothing would be added and thus with that wording it is logical to think that option 1 is Artist who doesn't play poker. The two options are presented as contrasting each other.
    1
  23.  @Owen_loves_Butters  but it is there, the word "also" is there.
    1
  24.  @Owen_loves_Butters  Words and sentences don't exist in a vacuum. On top of that, language isn't unequivocal. This is not a question about math or logic, but of language. So, in addition to all this, in the image shown at 0:22 only the second choice is depicted with poker cards, further cementing the portrayal that option 1 is portrait artist that does not play poker. (Oh yeah, usually people are not described by what they don't do, but what they do, which is another reason why people interpret option 1 as non-poker playing portrait artist.) It is just poorly phrased/depicted, not a big deal. You can accept that without disagreeing with the actual math of the video.
    1
  25.  @Owen_loves_Butters  it actually implies that the options are mutually exclusive as it is not and/or. When you ask a question like this, you only present option 1 and option 2, you would not have the or in between as that will be interpreted as mutual exclusivity by some people. If you were in a competition to make a question about this that minimizes the number of misunderstandings of the phrasing of the question, you would not win with this phrasing. I am not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. Just read the comments, I am far, far, far from the only one talking about this very thing.
    1
  26.  @Owen_loves_Butters  that is exactly what I told you, so why are you telling me? Methinks you are here for a fight. Also, it is not just my opinion, numerous people in the comment section agree with me.
    1
  27.  @Owen_loves_Butters  ? I have no idea what you are trying to say, it certainly does when presenting two options.
    1
  28.  @Owen_loves_Butters  ""Numerous people" still a small fraction of the people that watched this." Not everyone comments. That is besides the point though. You framed this as my opinion when it is far from just my opinion. A significant part of the comment section agrees with me. "There will always be people that are confused, no matter how you word things." Does that mean it is impossible to determine if a phrasing is confusing or if one phrasing is less confusing than the other? What are you even trying to say here? Tell me, what is your end goal with this conversation? What do you hope to have accomplished once we part ways?
    1
  29.  @Owen_loves_Butters  but that is besides the point as we are essentially not talking about wording in statistics now, but in English. Also, we are talking about what it implies, not what it strictly means. A word can imply two different things as implications exist in the realm of interpretation. Fair enough. I just hoped you would put in more of an effort to try to understand my point. Like, what are your thoughts about only the picture for the second option depicts poker cards, even though option 1 could represent poker player? Do you see a pedagogical issue in that?
    1
  30.  @Owen_loves_Butters  you talk about those words as if they are not a part of the English language. It is not written in math language, i.e. symbols, it is expressed in English. The question comes in the form of English and thus people work their interpretation through the language filter. If people treat it as a normal interaction with English, you will get a different result compared to if they treat it as a purely mathematical thing. That is just how it is, something you can't deny. I am explaining why it happens and you are arguing for why it should not happen. We are talking about two different things. I really don't care if those implications are fallacious or not (it certainly isn't fallacious in English), all I care about is how to minimize miscommunication. That doesn't mean it isn't important to be proficient in the language you do your math in, it is extremely important, but let us realize what it actually is. How is the picture not relevant? It is literally used to describe the question. Your claims are just so wild man. Completely off the hook. It is as if you actually have a desire deep down to not understand. Do you think that could be the case? They could have poker cards and a question mark, so it is not a binary choice. Nothing is more confusing than people misunderstanding the question. We assume things all the time, and if we didn't we could not function, so to have this extreme view of that you may never ever assume anything is just counter-productive.
    1
  31.  @Owen_loves_Butters  only if you deal with mathematicians. This question is directed at the common folk, so that has to be taken into account. That's the thing, if you want to test something, you actually have to construct the test so that you actually test what you want to test, not something different. That is true both in math and science. The fallacy they want to highlight with this certain question is baked in with simple misunderstanding of the intent of the question based on common use of the English language. Now as I understand it, the study this video is referencing did it differently, this is just a poor oversimplification.
    1
  32. it is still a statistical question though :).
    1
  33. tbh, the image shown at 0:22 validates your brain. There are no poker cars to the left, but are to the right. Only logical conclusion from the image is that left does not play, right does play. There is no hidden box or question mark on left side.
    1
  34. should I assume what you mean with "ockham razor"? I can assume you just misspelled that, but that would just make it more likely that I get it wrong, right?
    1
  35.  @maryzhen2031  well, misspelled is perhaps not the correct description. As it is "a dude's razor" it would be "Ockham's razor".
    1
  36. also imagery chosen poorly, specifically at 0:22
    1
  37. they interpret the two options as mutually exclusive. It is not that strange.
    1
  38. "School-teachers who use trick-questions should not be teachers" I second this.
    1
  39. we don't know how many, but we know some do. At least so they claim in this comment section. As I understand it though, they are not describing a specific study in this video, but an analogy for one, which screws it up.
    1
  40. which is understandable, because that is exactly what is described in the picture at 0:22 :P
    1
  41.  @JaTjr32  well said. I think this is especially poignant given the picture used in 0:22 which your analogy fits perfectly in.
    1
  42.  @StefV153  this video might be about the fallacy to assume that as poker players is a niche group for everyone, it has to be a niche group within statistics pros as well :P. A reverse fallacy of composition: "The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole."
    1
  43. the way "who also plays poker" is said implies "person 1" isn't playing poker. If the narrator had said "a portrait artist who plays poker" in a normal way, I bet you'd see less option 2 answers.
    1
  44. if you only saw the picture at 0:20
    1
  45. Exactly.
    1
  46. actually, if you don't assume things, you won't be able to function.
    1
  47. yea, that take seemed a bit off. It sounds like they are saying that the more evidence there is for a thing, the less likely it is to be true, which obviously would be the opposite :P.
    1
  48.  @JonnyHavens  yea I think those pictures really opens up for the difference in interpretation between people.
    1
  49.  @neuron2912  lol, you like your own comments and then try to talk to me about what is lame and not, that is hilarious. The question was stated ambiguous enough, especially with the image at 0:22 , for you to not be so aggressive about it. Take a chill pill dude, or dudette.
    1
  50.  @neuron2912  one day you'll have grown up enough to realize the errors of your ways today :).
    1
  51.  @VijfMiljard  it all comes down to how you define "plays poker" in terms of frequency. Given my experience with people who know statistics well enough to be able to ace those tests, and how infrequent people have to play something to be called a player of it, I went for the poker playing artist over the non poker playing artist.
    1
  52.  @thebashfulturtle9987  exactly. There is a difference between "and/or" and "or".
    1
  53.  @longlostwraith5106  for you to say "still think" implies that the situations are similar, which they are not. Only things similar are the numbers 1 and 2 :P.
    1
  54. it depends on what the chance is in the game of chance :D. We have the "law of big numbers" to rely on :). My experience is the opposite, those trained enjoy putting that training into practice via games. Well, at least those who "ace statistics", maybe not those who are "forced" to take statistics :P.
    1
  55. not if it is a zero sum game.
    1
  56. the "or" in between the options indicates that as well.
    1