home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu!rmr
- From: rmr@acsu.buffalo.edu (Richard M. Romanowski)
- Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
- Subject: Re: Logic and stuff
- Message-ID: <BxxxH7.Hz1@acsu.buffalo.edu>
- Date: 19 Nov 92 01:58:18 GMT
- Article-I.D.: acsu.BxxxH7.Hz1
- References: <1992Nov18.035416.23721@news2.cis.umn.edu> <BxwG6E.Evs@acsu.buffalo.edu> <1992Nov18.115306.18277@jussieu.fr>
- Sender: nntp@acsu.buffalo.edu
- Organization: UB
- Lines: 24
- Nntp-Posting-Host: lictor.acsu.buffalo.edu
-
- corruble@lpia6.ibp.fr (CORRUBLE Vincent) writes:
-
- >I think the way people perceive/understand the experiment is the reason
- >why they
- >think that 2 is more likely than 1
- >They hear
- >|> >1) Linda is a bank teller.
- >|> >2) Linda is a bank teller and active in the feminist movement."
- >but they perceive
- >|> >1) Linda is a bank teller and she is NOT active in the feminist movement.
- >|> >2) Linda is a bank teller and active in the feminist movement."
- >since this dichotomic question is much more common than a attribute with
- >a "don't know"
- >value.
-
- It sounds as though this is more descriptive of the particular
- phenomenon, and my theory is just a general factor which enters in, but
- doesn'y drive the whole thing. The dichotomy is probably the specific
- cause of the observed phenomenon, whereas the "important info selection"
- factor I dreamed up applies, but only in the background....
-
- Good call, Dr. Corruble...
- Luck
- Rick
-