What are some examples of 'common sense' which are nonsense?
-
-
Exactly. I feel like just listing them out is of limited use because of that.
-
-
-
-
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.
-
-
-
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?
-
Wait, how does that work? It seems like it should take the same energy to melt it either way.
presumably they mean using something besides your body heat to melt it
