What are some examples of 'common sense' which are nonsense?
-
My favourite explanation of the Monty hall problem is that you probably picked the wrong door as your first choice (because there’s 2/3 chance of it being wrong). Therefore once the third door is removed and you’re given the option to switch you should, because assuming you did pick the wrong door first then the other door has to be the right one
-
and even if there is a reasonable option, they probably won’t win the vote anyway.
See, this is it right here. Anyone can run, but nobody can win without being slick and two-faced. The idiot vote is the largest block. If you get involved it'll be obvious pretty fast.
(I say usually, because a few elections are better than other, but generally speaking at a federal level, it’s slime no matter how you vote)
So, you're assuming we're all American here. This applies to every democracy, including my own. In America, add a probably terminal deadlock problem in on top of that.
-
Exactly. I feel like just listing them out is of limited use because of that.
-
"There's a first time for everything."
No, not if I don't do that thing. I will not have a first time for murder. Getting murdered might be out of my control, but I won't commit one.
-
Cold Air will make you sick.
There are plenty of studies debunking it, and yet I still hear about it all the time.
-
It's extremely useful, because it's an index to all the known things that might be useful in a given situation. The point is not to assess all of them, the point is to not miss ones you're unfamiliar with that may be important in your situation.
-
Thanks for the help, it was easier this time
-
Is the goal to point out contradictions in the pairs you gave?
-
I've been hearing it for years, always argued against it.
-
If "common sense is not very common", why is it called common sense?
Slightly off topic, sorry.
-
-
Don’t eat snow to rehydrate yourself. It will only make you freeze to death faster. Melt the snow outside of your body first.
Wait, how does that work? It seems like it should take the same energy to melt it either way.
Also, do people not know every berry isn't edible? Even here where not a lot grows, there's plenty of decorative ones around that will give you the violent shits.
-
When people say that, they mean they're so much smarter than everyone else they could fix it all in a moment.
Of course, in reality, the cranky old man saying that has just stayed so uninformed about the issues he doesn't know what he doesn't know.
-
This is a common argument in our house.
-
My explanation is better:
There's three doors, of which one is the winner.
First, pick a door to exclude. You have a 66% chance of correctly excluding a non-winning door.
Next, Monty excludes a non- winning door with certainty.
Finally, open the remaining door and take the prize!
-
but nobody can win without being slick and two-faced
And don't forget 'rich', or more importantly, supported by the rich. A national-scale campaign requires resources that a typical organization can't gather, and to win without such a campaign is miraculous in most systems.
So, you’re assuming we’re all American here.
Nah, like you said it applies to most democracies, even if America is an extreme example of these universal trends.
-
In Germany, people are very concerned about Zugluft, i.e. draft from opening multiple windows.
-
Adding my own explanation, because I think it clicks better for me (especially when I write it down):
- Pick a door. You have a 66% chance of picking a wrong door, and a 33% of picking the right door.
- Monty excludes a door with 100% certainty
- IF you picked a wrong door, then there's a 100% chance the remaining door is correct (so the contingent probability is
p(switch|picked wrong) = 100%), so the total chance of the remaining door being correct isp(switch|picked wrong)* p(picked wrong) = 66%. - IF you picked the right door, then Monty's reveal gives you no new information, because both the other doors were wrong, so
p(switch|picked right) = 50%, which means thatp(switch|picked right) * p(picked right) = 50% * 33% = 17%. p(don't switch|picked wrong) * p(picked wrong) = 50% * 66% = 33%(because of the remaining doors including the one you picked, you have no more information)p(don't switch|picked right) * p(picked right) = 50% * 33% = 17%(because both of the unpicked doors are wrong, Monty didn't give you more information)
So there's a strong benefit of switching (66% to 33%) if you picked wrong, and even odds of switching if you picked right (17% in both cases).
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.
-
I work in the risk assessment space, so they are kind of critical to be aware of, for me
-
That's more of an turn-of-phrase, no?
