The `Conjunction Fallacy' is a fallacy or error in decision making where people judge that a conjunction of two possible events is more likely than one or both of the conjuncts. Here are some examples. EXAMPLE ONE: Doc went to the store and bought tofu, eggplant, broccoli, and frozen meatless lasagna. Is it more likely that Doc is a man or a man who is a vegetarian? EXAMPLE TWO: Doc has a PhD or Doc has a PhD and reads the Wall Street Journal. EXAMPLE THREE: Aaron drove to a party in South Dakota in a Rolls Royce or Aaron drove to a party in South Dakota in a Rolls Royce as is a millionaire. In each example, the former is the correct answer. CONJUNCTION FALLACY: MR. F. HAD A HEART ATTACK. Excerpt from pages 51-52 of the book The Velocity of Information: Human Thinking During Chaotic Times (2022). In 1983, world-renowned psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman published a ground-breaking study on intuitive human cognitive bias (cite 1). They showed that when subjects are asked the likelihood of several alternatives, including single and joint events, they often make a conjunction fallacy. That is, they rate the conjunction of two events as being more likely, or more plausible, than only one of the constituent events. They presented the following fabricated scenarios to 115 undergraduates at Stanford University and the University of British Columbia: A health survey was conducted in a representative sample of adult males in British Columbia of all ages and occupations. Mr. F. was included in the sample. He was selected by chance from a list of participants. Which of the following statements is more probable? (A) Mr. F. has had one or more heart attacks. (B) Mr. F. has had one or more heart attacks and he is over 55 years old. This seemingly transparent problem elicited a substantial proportion (58% selected option B) of conjunction errors among statistically naive respondents (cite 2). WE ARE PRONE TO BELIEVE VIVID STORIES. This example, and countless like it, reveal that we are all subject to the conjunction fallacy, where we regularly violate the laws of probability due to a vivid story. This error in decision-making happens when people judge that a conjunction of two possible events is more likely than one or both of the conjuncts. Innate human reasoning infers that the addition of more details increases the probability of two events occurring simultaneously. (It is also an explanation for why liars tend to add additional or even excessive detail to a given lie in order to predispose the recipient to accepting the lie as truth.) However, the more detailed outcome is just that, more detailed. It is not more plausible or more likely. In fact, the probability of the two events occurring together (in conjunction) is always less than or equal to the probability of either one occurring alone. In other words, a conjunction cannot be more probable than one of its constituents. CONJUNCTION FALLACY DURING THE PANDEMIC. Which of these statements might you have deemed to be most probable on March 25, 2020? (A) The governor has ordered people to stay home. (B) The governor has ordered people to stay home, and state highways are closed. Previous studies of conjunction statements imply that the majority of people presented with these statements would select B. Fortunately, conjunction bias collapses in on itself when too many conditions are stated. Most people are able to identify the mental trickery of a statement with a dozen conjunctions. It no longer makes sense from a face validity standpoint. CITATIONS: (1) Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. “Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment.” Psychological Review, 90 (1983): 293–315. (2) Tversky and Kahneman, Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning, 293–315. FOLLOW DR. PERRODIN: Twitter @SafetyPhD and subscribe to The Safety Doc YouTube channel & Apple Podcasts. SAFETY DOC WEBSITE, BLOG & BOOKS: www.safetyphd.com. The Safety Doc Podcast is hosted & produced by David P. Perrodin, PhD. This podcast and blog post represent the opinions of David P. Perrodin and his guests to the show. The content here is for informational purposes only. Please consult with your safety professional regarding the unique needs of yourself or your organization.This is episode 172 of The Safety Doc Podcast published on 03-08-2022. GET DOC’S BOOKS. Purchase the preeminent book of scholarship for an uncertain epoch from your favorite bookstore or online retailer and recommend it as a purchase for your local library! The Velocity of Information: Human Thinking During Chaotic Times (2022) by David P. Perrodin.
Purchase Dr. Perrodin’s Books:
First Upon An Accident | Interview with Justin Dooley
Online Predator Tactics | Child Grooming Awareness with Hector Solis
The 4 Self-Awareness Archetypes & Introspection's Fatal Flaw
Hawaii Missile Alert: The STRANGE Narrative - Interview with Jim Malliard
Video Gaming the System - Are Video Games a Debilitating Addiction?
Irrational Desire for Perfection or Dread of Social Failure - Why are Younger Adults are so Depressed?
Army; DHS Prep Teachers for Active Shooters with Video Games - Will it Work?
2017 in Review & What I Learned from Custer's Last Stand
The Mass Psychology of Disasters: 8 Findings That Don’t Fit the Narrative
The Anatomy Of Panic
Rhetoric Wins As School Trip To DC Canceled Over Fears Of Attack
The Equifax Credit Breach - Here's What You Need To Do Now!
Subjective Reality Versus Objective Reality
The Humor Response - A Deeper Look
Comedy After Tragedy? Larry Roberts & David Perrodin
"Projected Benchmarking" - Garbage Media Ploys Following A Mass Shooting
Cajun Navy Insider - Katie Pechon Interview / TRUE STORIES
Economic Argument For Price Gouging In Disasters
Hashtag Hurricane Rescues Are Here To Stay - Pros; Cons
Houston Dunkirk, Cajun Navy; Fixing FEMA
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free
Navigating Life After 40
Teaching Learning Leading K-12
Regenerative Skills
The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast
The Mel Robbins Podcast