Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty

@article{Cosmides1996AreHG,
  title={Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty},
  author={L. Cosmides and J. Tooby},
  journal={Cognition},
  year={1996},
  volume={58},
  pages={1-73}
}
Abstract Professional probabilists have long argued over what probability means, with, for example, Bayesians arguing that probabilities refer to subjective degrees of confidence and frequentists arguing that probabilities refer to the frequencies of events in the world. Recently, Gigerenzer and his colleagues have argued that these same distinctions are made by untutored subjects, and that, for many domains, the human mind represents probabilistic information as frequencies. We analyze several… Expand
1,067 Citations

Figures and Tables from this paper

2 Bayesian Reasoning as a Test Case of Probabilistic Thinking
  • PDF
Good fences make for good neighbors but bad science: a review of what improves Bayesian reasoning and why
  • 30
  • Highly Influenced
  • PDF
The role of causality in judgment under uncertainty.
  • 148
  • PDF
The Role of Causal Models in Statistical Reasoning
  • 3
  • PDF
Infant Statisticians: The Origins of Reasoning Under Uncertainty
  • S. Denison, F. Xu
  • Psychology, Medicine
  • Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science
  • 2019
  • 10
  • PDF
Frequency, Probability, and Prediction: Easy Solutions to Cognitive Illusions?
  • 123
  • PDF
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 99 REFERENCES
...
1
2
3
4
5
...