Inevitable Illusions

From: Chris De Voir (devoirc@biotronik.com)
Date: Fri Jun 01 2001 - 11:24:40 MET DST

  • Next message: Jimi Shanahan: "Extended Deadline: MODELLING WITH WORDS Workshop - FUZZ-IEEE 2001"

    Thank you for your comments and clarifications. But there is a particular
    slant to my line of questioning that I am trying to convey. I offer another
    example found at:
    http://www.dcs.qmw.ac.uk/~norman/BBNs/Representativeness.htm (where there
    are more examples relevant to thread of my original question).

    "Insensitivity to prior probability of outcomes

    Suppose you are given the following description of a person:

    'He is an extremely athletic looking young man who drives a fast car and has
    an attractive blond girlfriend.'

    Now answer the following question:

     Is the person most likely to be a premiership professional footballer or a
    nurse?

     If you answered professional footballer then you were sucked into this
    particular fallacy. You made the mistake of ignoring the base-rate
    frequencies of the different professions simply because the description of
    the person better matched the stereotypical image. In fact there are only
    400 premiership professional footballers in the UK compared with many
    thousands of male nurses, so in the absence of any other information it is
    far more likely that the person is a nurse."

    In light of this example, the questions I am really trying ask are:

    1. Would not Fuzzy thinking yield an answer that would be consistent with
    (in the same ballpark as) what Kahneman & Tversky say is the correct answer?

    2. What "systeme" in Fuzzy assures this? In another post to this list,
    "Bayes-learning-thought etc", Martin Lefley (Thu Jan 18 2001) stated,
    "Bayesian reasoning is represented by formulae that could be represented
    by...FLS...." Does anyone have a pointer to this method?

    3. Could Fuzzy thinkers come up with answers that Kahneman & Tversky would
    identify as heuristically biased? This is not a rhetorical question, since
    #4 and #5 follow.

    4. In that case, what essential(s) of the Fuzzy reasoning process has been
    overlooked or misapplied?

    5. In the case of #3 as an outcome, could it be that no violations Fuzzy
    reasoning have occurred?

    Chris.

    ############################################################################
    This message was posted through the fuzzy mailing list.
    (1) To subscribe to this mailing list, send a message body of
    "SUB FUZZY-MAIL myFirstName mySurname" to listproc@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
    (2) To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message body of
    "UNSUB FUZZY-MAIL" or "UNSUB FUZZY-MAIL yoursubscription@email.address.com"
    to listproc@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
    (3) To reach the human who maintains the list, send mail to
    fuzzy-owner@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
    (4) WWW access and other information on Fuzzy Sets and Logic see
    http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/ftp/mlowner/fuzzy-mail.info
    (5) WWW archive: http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/marchives/fuzzy-mail/index.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 11:30:27 MET DST