I think the conjunction fallacy feels intuitive because a lot of people unconsciously reinterpret a conjunction (“A and B”) as a conditional (“A given B”).
When you ask people to evaluate the probability of “Reagan will provide federal support for unwed mothers and cut federal support to local governments”, most people instead evaluate the probability of “Reagan will provide federal support for unwed mothers given that he cuts federal support to local governments”, which can indeed be more probable than A alone since the second detail makes the first feel more politically coherent.
I think the conjunction fallacy feels intuitive because a lot of people unconsciously reinterpret a conjunction (“A and B”) as a conditional (“A given B”).
When you ask people to evaluate the probability of “Reagan will provide federal support for unwed mothers and cut federal support to local governments”, most people instead evaluate the probability of “Reagan will provide federal support for unwed mothers given that he cuts federal support to local governments”, which can indeed be more probable than A alone since the second detail makes the first feel more politically coherent.