April 11, 2008 at 16:43Psychologists do not know the theory of probability
Probability experts have discovered fundamental flaws in many of the sociological surveys and psychological tests that have been carried out over the past 50 years.
The fact is that humanities do not understand mathematics at all. In particular, they are not familiar with the Monty Hall paradox . This is not surprising, because this phenomenon from probability theory contradicts common sense. And people of humanitarian specialties (sociologists, psychologists, etc.) conduct their polls and calculate the results based on common sense and basic logic, which does not work here.
Here is a simple example of cognitive dissonance. At the game “Oh, lucky one!” You are offered three options for the correct answer. You have chosen one, but the good leader decides to help you and closes one of the three answers, which is definitely wrong. What should be done in such a situation? Common sense dictates that there is no reason to cancel your choice. But probability theory clearly indicates that when you change the answer option, your chances of winning double .
This is an approximate description of the famous Monty Hall paradox (detailed description under habrakat). If you take it into account when conducting opinion polls and psychological studies, then the results of many of them can be interpreted differently and the results vary slightly.
Help from Wikipedia .
“The Monty Hall paradox is one of the known problems of probability theory, the solution of which, at first glance, contradicts common sense. The task is formulated as a description of a hypothetical game based on the American television show “Let's Make a Deal”, and named after the host of this program. The most common wording of this problem, published in 1990 in Parade Magazine, is as follows:
Imagine that you have become a participant in a game in which you need to choose one of three doors. There is a car behind one of the doors, goats behind two other doors. You choose one of the doors, for example, number 1, after which the leader, who knows where the car is and where the goats are, opens one of the remaining doors, for example, number 3, behind which the goat is located. After that, he asks you if you would like to change your choice and choose door number 2. Will your chances of winning a car increase if you accept the host’s offer and change your choice?
Although this formulation of the problem is the most famous, it is somewhat problematic, since it leaves some important conditions of the problem undefined. The following is a more complete wording.
In solving this problem, they usually reason like this: after the leader opened the door behind which the goat is located, the car can be only behind one of the two remaining doors. Since the player cannot obtain any additional information about which door the car is located in, the probability of finding a car behind each door is the same, and changing the initial choice of the door does not give the player any advantages. However, this line of reasoning is incorrect. If the leader always knows what door is behind, always opens the door that the goat is behind, and always invites the player to change his choice, then the probability that the car is behind the door selected by the player is 1/3, and, accordingly, the probability that the car is behind the remaining door is 2/3. Thus, changing the initial choice increases the player’s chances of winning the car by 2 times. This conclusion contradicts the intuitive perception of the situation by most people, so the described task is called the Monty Hall paradox. ”
The fact is that humanities do not understand mathematics at all. In particular, they are not familiar with the Monty Hall paradox . This is not surprising, because this phenomenon from probability theory contradicts common sense. And people of humanitarian specialties (sociologists, psychologists, etc.) conduct their polls and calculate the results based on common sense and basic logic, which does not work here.
Here is a simple example of cognitive dissonance. At the game “Oh, lucky one!” You are offered three options for the correct answer. You have chosen one, but the good leader decides to help you and closes one of the three answers, which is definitely wrong. What should be done in such a situation? Common sense dictates that there is no reason to cancel your choice. But probability theory clearly indicates that when you change the answer option, your chances of winning double .
This is an approximate description of the famous Monty Hall paradox (detailed description under habrakat). If you take it into account when conducting opinion polls and psychological studies, then the results of many of them can be interpreted differently and the results vary slightly.
Help from Wikipedia .“The Monty Hall paradox is one of the known problems of probability theory, the solution of which, at first glance, contradicts common sense. The task is formulated as a description of a hypothetical game based on the American television show “Let's Make a Deal”, and named after the host of this program. The most common wording of this problem, published in 1990 in Parade Magazine, is as follows:
Imagine that you have become a participant in a game in which you need to choose one of three doors. There is a car behind one of the doors, goats behind two other doors. You choose one of the doors, for example, number 1, after which the leader, who knows where the car is and where the goats are, opens one of the remaining doors, for example, number 3, behind which the goat is located. After that, he asks you if you would like to change your choice and choose door number 2. Will your chances of winning a car increase if you accept the host’s offer and change your choice?
Although this formulation of the problem is the most famous, it is somewhat problematic, since it leaves some important conditions of the problem undefined. The following is a more complete wording.
In solving this problem, they usually reason like this: after the leader opened the door behind which the goat is located, the car can be only behind one of the two remaining doors. Since the player cannot obtain any additional information about which door the car is located in, the probability of finding a car behind each door is the same, and changing the initial choice of the door does not give the player any advantages. However, this line of reasoning is incorrect. If the leader always knows what door is behind, always opens the door that the goat is behind, and always invites the player to change his choice, then the probability that the car is behind the door selected by the player is 1/3, and, accordingly, the probability that the car is behind the remaining door is 2/3. Thus, changing the initial choice increases the player’s chances of winning the car by 2 times. This conclusion contradicts the intuitive perception of the situation by most people, so the described task is called the Monty Hall paradox. ”