Lec 8 Flashcards
False beliefs
- we are good at detecting patterns (seeing structure)
- just because we see it doesn’t mean there’s a causal relationship (misinterpret coincidences, illusory correlation)
What are random sequences? How does that relate to the clustering illusion?
Random sequences have clusters
- random independent sample = events not dependent on one another
- there are more streaks than we expect
- they occur randomly, but we tend to assign meaning to it
“Hot hands” (gilovich)
belief: basketball players have streaks of good or bad shooting, e.g. previously shooting well (groove), likely to make next shot
Testable prediction: statistical analysis of free throws
=> no systematic difference between % after 3 hits and 3 misses
=> misinterpreted? 3 in a row likely to standout (illusory perceived relation)
What is the issue with misperceived coincidence?
Example:
- prophecy (can easily occur by coincidence, e.g. very vague info)
=> if it does occur, seems to confirm prophecy (do u know the 99 other times the predictions were wrong?)
we incorrectly perceive the frequency of unusual occurrences
- not all evidence is equally salient (memorable) => link to biases in false beliefs
Systematic biases (linked to salience):
Asymmetric evidence
- prophecy, prediction, dishes (mistaken belief)
- event (the one time there’s dirty dishes / actually a streaker => remember the prediction even tho it’s specific) vs nonevent (sink is clean for most of the week / no streaker at the Olympics)
- typical vs atypical
- confirmatory or disconfirmatory
Why negative overestimated for minority groups despite exposure to equal proportions of pos/neg behavior?
Illusory correlation
- natural asymmetry, rare enough combo to be remembered compared to the positive
- rarer examples => more salient => overestimation
Illusory correlations and inkblot tests
- clinicians believed there were no. of clues to be predictive
- were they influenced by some stereotype association?
- because empirically, no correlation
=> overestimate frequency of co-occurrence (words associated to stereotype and homosexuality)
Control associations: pair different symptoms with an interpretation (made up) to participants
- 50% of the time the (invalid) cue (popular with clinicians) were identified as “predictive”
- actual correlation is 0 tho for both types of cues
Natural expectation: seem to fit stereotype, sticks out more
Personality test - what effect is linked to it (and astrology)
expectation: rate it higher (worked well)
Key: description is same for everyone
- generic
- questions feel personal detailed
Barnum effect:
- fail to notice it is a good fit to anyone
- why would the month of birth be associated with personality type?
Regression to the mean
- what is the fallacy?
- what are the factors in score of tests?
- statistical phenomenon
- cause systematic relationships over time (but entirely due to chance!)
=> extreme scorers tend to subsequently perform closer to the mean (top ppl tend to be above average)
=> if u score high on first time, second one tends to be lower (and vice versa) - 80% of time goes down after a high score
=> so can be misinterpreted
Regression fallacy: making a causal interpretation of random regression effect
Factors: individual differences + random variability
Sports Illustrated example
- cover => do worse
Possible causal explanations: - pressure: u are on the cover
- opponents: more motivated to beat you?
overconfidence: u just made the cover (a good outcome)
Regression the mean!!!
- a particularly good team (weekly magazine), smth impressive happened (the top score)
- so regress / expect to be worse on av.
Note: this one is less considered/not even considered
Application: punishment vs reward
- reward is more effective than punishment (intrinsic motivation)
- but how did the belief that the opposite is true originate?
=> regression fallacy
- TUTORIAL NOTES
What is neglect of coincidence?
- random clusters
- regression to mean
- barnum effect (general descriptions)
- non-specific predictions often come true
- specific predictions can occasionally happen
If smth is not true, how does it persist?
=> neglect of coincidence
How would you test a tongue map? (persistence of myth)
- apply dif. flavors to dif. parts of the tongue
- but it’s completely wrong! no tongue map
- all taste receptors are equally distributed across the tongue
Area of conflict: tongue map disproved nearly 40 years ago, but why is it still being presented on science education websites?
=> expectations influence perception, e.g. believe a certain region “feels/tastes” more saltier (cuz u are told to expect smth)
=> look for problems with test instead e.g. i didn’t place the drops correctly (explaining away contradictory evidence)
So why do erroneous beliefs persist?
Exposure to counterevidence or contradictions should allow us to correct the error
Some cognitive factors interfere with correcting the false beliefs
- Neglect missing info
- Confirmatory evidence more noticeable (asymmetry in salience)
- Tendency to seek confirmatory evidence and proves, not disproves: number rule discovery
- Biased interpretation (prior beliefs): tongue map
Rule discovery example with numbers
Tendency: go with examples that confirm the rule (confirmation bias)
=> makes us think the rule we’re confident and keep finding out how many steps when it’s just any increasing numbers
=> the issue is, we didn’t learn our guess is wrong / doesn’t really help us to figure out the rule (cant figure out truth) (reinforces our mistaken belief about the rule!)
