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}
}
  • L. Cosmides, J. Tooby
  • Published 1996
  • Psychology
  • Cognition
  • 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… CONTINUE READING
    1,064 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

    References

    SHOWING 1-10 OF 99 REFERENCES