EPTThought 10 cent the first second but then was like... no that's wrong.. got 5 cent 2 seconds later.
Smarter people more prone to cognitive bias - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
Thought 10 cent the first second but then was like... no that's wrong.. got 5 cent 2 seconds later. | ||
|
Lobo2me
Norway1213 Posts
On June 13 2012 21:42 Zedders wrote: Yeah but smart people don't recognize where they fall short. "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf In that research, the people that performed best underestimated themselves relative to how they thought the rest of the test subjects performed. However they had no problem estimating their actual test score. The people that performed worst, overestimated their performance relative to how they thought the rest of the test subjects performed. They also overestimated their actual test score. | ||
|
Lobo2me
Norway1213 Posts
On June 13 2012 21:45 GizmoPT wrote: so it means people that think it was 10 cents are smarter thana the guys that answer 0.5 right away so i think most of TL guys are dumb although they answered right ;D 0.5 cents or 0.5 dollars? Or did you mean 0.5 dimes? | ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
On June 13 2012 21:45 Lobo2me wrote: I see no reason to assume B has the same concentration-signal relation as A.You did get the right answer, but it was purely through luck. From sample 1 to sample 2, equal concentration would get 2x signal, which is seen with A (2x concentration -> 4x signal). That means when B had a 3x signal increase, it was a 1.5x concentration increase. For example if the signal for B in sample 1 had been 1200, the concentration would be 2.25. | ||
|
SheepSayMeh
Netherlands16 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On June 13 2012 21:14 Lobo2me wrote: Here's a little task: In sample 1, A has a concentration of 2 and a signal of 300. B has a concentration of 3 and a signal of 600. In sample 2, A has a concentration of 4 and a signal of 1200. B has a signal of 1800, what's the concentration? Nowhere is it stated that B and A follows the concentration/signal curve or that there is any connection. I'm going to go right ahead and say that since B has a 3 times higher concentration in sample 2 the answer is also a 3 times increase in concentration meaning 9. You either need to specify a correlation between the 2 substances (A and B) or define a rate at which concentration/signal rises. Without either of those limits imposed I'm free to assume that B follows linear trend. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
I dont know if this is realy suprising, its also not so easy to understand what is meant in the article. There 2 different things: The cognitive bias itself, and the blind spot for this (the ability to recognise your own cognitive bias) The blindspot is discussed in the article and they basicly say that the blindspot is bigger with people who have a high iq. Smarter people overestimate their own judgement more then stupid people. That doesnt make them less smart btw!, it just means that they are a bit less smart then they think they are. The part of the article your quoted only talks about this blindspot for the cognitive bias. It does not say annything about the seize of the cognitive bias itself. You need to have cognition before you can have a bias in the first place. Smarter people know more (have more cognition) so most likely also will be more biased due to this cognition. All knowledge is a bias you can kinda argue, it does not make it less valuable. | ||
|
GiftPflanZe
Germany623 Posts
edit : ok I got it lol. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
I would have thought cognitive bias is about, for example, not believing climate change or evolution despite all the evidence. So what's a bunch of trick math questions got to do with it? | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
Anyway, I've seen the claim that smart people can be more prone to cognitive biases than average ones. Specifically they were better at rationalizing their position when they were wrong, while the average person was more likely to accept the right answer on authority  The point is to use your intelligence to look for the truth not to defend positions you're mindlessly drawn to. | ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
There is a certain, beautiful irony to a team of PhDs writing a study about cognitive bias and trying so hard to come up with the conclusion of "smart people can't solve problems through thinking and introspection". Meta as fuck. | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
 (programmer) | ||
|
Cynry
810 Posts
On June 13 2012 22:18 Rassy wrote: You need to have cognition before you can have a bias in the first place. Smarter people know more (have more cognition) so most likely also will be more biased due to this cognition. You also need an exterior idea to compare to your own to have a bias. One can imagine that the smarter someone is, the more likely he is to be right, and thus to have more of a habit to "reject" ideas. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
| ||
|
EneMecH
United Kingdom218 Posts
| ||
|
HallBregg
134 Posts
Also, In my experience this kind of problms are better solved taking a paper and writing an equation, forcing the mathematical abstracion helps aboid silly mistakes. | ||
|
ott
United States74 Posts
| ||
|
EneMecH
United Kingdom218 Posts
Therefore, it makes sense to automatically assume the simpler option and then your brain (I believe, especially an intelligent one) will better try to justify this position further before exploring more complicated alternatives. I believe that people would get bored of it and conclude the answer before then, as the question itself is assanine and the answer irrelevant. | ||
|
MHT
Sweden1026 Posts
| ||
|
Otolia
France5805 Posts
| ||
| ||
