But if you’re around people who see it as a jerk move to insist on precision when something meaningful actually depends on that precision, then you need to replace those people.
Huh? First, Linda’s occupation in the original example is trivial, since I don’t know Linda and could not care less about what she does for a living.
And “replacing” people is not how life works. To be successful, you’ll need navigate (without replacing) all types of folks.
And if they were intentionally asking you a gotcha, and you skewer the gotcha, that’s a win for you and a loss for them.
This sounds weird to me. Who does this?
Anyway… I get the conjunction fallacy. There are plenty of useful applications for it. I still think the core of how it is presented around here is goofy. Of course additional conjunctions = lower probability. And yep, that isn’t instantly intuitive so it’s good to know.
Huh? First, Linda’s occupation in the original example is trivial, since I don’t know Linda and could not care less about what she does for a living.
And “replacing” people is not how life works. To be successful, you’ll need navigate (without replacing) all types of folks.
This sounds weird to me. Who does this?
Anyway… I get the conjunction fallacy. There are plenty of useful applications for it. I still think the core of how it is presented around here is goofy. Of course additional conjunctions = lower probability. And yep, that isn’t instantly intuitive so it’s good to know.
Agreed. That’s why I gave a non-trivial example for the broader reference class of ‘steelmanning questions’ / ‘not noticing and pursuing confusion.’
Disagreed. Replacing people is costly, yes, but oftentimes the costs are worth paying.
It is one of many status games that people can play, and thus one that people sometimes do play.