# Con­junc­tion Fallacy

TagLast edit: 3 Oct 2020 0:21 UTC by

The conjunction fallacy consists in assuming that specific conditions are more probable than more general ones.

For the reasons related to representativeness heuristic, a fleshed-out story that contains typical amount of detail sounds more plausible than a stripped-down description of a situation that only states a few facts. There is a tendency for people to take that plausibility at face value, and assign probability accordingly. This intuition is wrong, because the conjunction rule of probability theory states that, for any event X, its conjunction with additional details Y will be less probable.

The conjunction fallacy suggests that one should be very careful in adding details to any claim, as even though each such detail may make the claim so much more convincing, it also inevitably subtracts from its validity.

# Disjunc­tions, An­tipre­dic­tions, Etc.

9 Dec 2008 15:13 UTC
28 points

# Con­junc­tion Con­tro­versy (Or, How They Nail It Down)

20 Sep 2007 2:41 UTC
58 points

# Con­junc­tion fal­lacy and prob­a­bil­is­tic risk as­sess­ment.

8 Mar 2012 15:07 UTC
26 points

# [SEQ RERUN] Con­junc­tion Fallacy

1 Sep 2011 2:19 UTC
11 points

# [Link] Us­ing the con­junc­tion fal­lacy to re­veal im­plicit associations

6 Dec 2011 17:29 UTC
7 points

# [Question] Can So­cial Dy­nam­ics Ex­plain Con­junc­tion Fal­lacy Ex­per­i­men­tal Re­sults?

5 Aug 2020 8:50 UTC
8 points

# Asch Con­for­mity Could Ex­plain the Con­junc­tion Fallacy

6 Aug 2020 21:46 UTC
7 points

# The Law of Least Effort Con­tributes to the Con­junc­tion Fallacy

9 Aug 2020 19:38 UTC
7 points

23 Feb 2009 23:30 UTC
57 points

# Bur­den­some Details

20 Sep 2007 23:46 UTC
219 points

# Which cog­ni­tive bi­ases should we trust in?

1 Jun 2012 6:37 UTC
29 points

# Con­junc­tion Fallacy

19 Sep 2007 1:54 UTC
48 points