We think that getting more information about a situation serve us make more exact predictions . There are times , though , when some well - chosen information can wreck our rationality . All we require is a good stereotype .
This phenomenon was first explored in Judgment Under Uncertainty : Heuristics and Biases . Heuristics are genial principle of pollex , little antic and strategy we use to resolve genial problems . Sometimes these are helpful ; other times , they lead us astray . The writers of the paper , Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky , demonstrated this when they asked subject to distinguish a individual ’s profession after a short description of that person ’s character . For example , they told hoi polloi about a man who was great , meticulous , skillful - hearted , but not social , and asked the multitude if he was a bibliothec or a farmer . The matter tend to think the man was a bibliothec , judging that these feature were more suitable to a bibliothec than a farmer . That might be true , but Kahneman and Tversky pointed out that there were 20 male farmers in the United States for every manly librarian . The stereotype would have to be irresistibly on-key of librarians and delusive for Farmer for a manful subject , plunk at random , to more probable be a librarian than a Fannie Merritt Farmer .
The stereotype fake - out tonic up again in the alignment false belief . To manifest this particular fallacy a similar subroutine is used . Subjects are given an judgment of a person ’s graphic symbol and then ask to rank statement about them in term of likelihood . The illustrious model is Linda : Linda is outspoken , smart , undivided , and she was politically participating in college , focusing on favoritism , societal DoJ , and atomic proliferation . The statement about her admit thing like , “ Linda is an elementary school teacher , ” and “ Linda work in a bookshop and takes yoga , ” but the affirmation researcher were particularly interested in were , “ Linda is a bank bank clerk , ” and “ Linda is a bank cashier and is participating in the feminist movement . ” The bank vote counter with a feminist reservation statement was almost always rank as more probable than the unsubdivided bank teller program line . Although almost everyone in college is at some detail politically active , although there are far few bank Edward Teller who are active in the feminist movement than overall cant Edward Teller , and although the bare bank teller statement does n’t preclude Linda from being a feminist as well as a bank narrator , citizenry thought the restricted statement was more probable .
This was emphasized when 57 % of player in the written report rank the feminist financial statement as more likely than the statement , “ Linda is a bank building teller whether or not she is active in the feminist movement . ” Even when explicitly told that the “ feminist ” variant of the statement was a smaller category within the “ bank teller ” financial statement , people still believed that the subcategory was more probable . And why ? Well , if she ’s bright , outspoken , and single , she sounds like a libber more than anything else , even if that ’s unacceptable . Qualifications always make a class more specific and less probable to hold to an individual , but when multitude fit our genial picture show of what a subcategory “ should ” be , the genuine betting odds do n’t count .
[ ViaJudgment under Uncertainty , Rational Choice in an Uncertain World , call up : Fast and Slow ]
probabilityPsychologyScience
Daily Newsletter
Get the best tech , science , and culture news in your inbox daily .
News from the time to come , delivered to your present .
Please select your trust newssheet and submit your email to upgrade your inbox .
You May Also Like
