Re: Fun with Experimental Design [WAS: Re: The Conjunction Fallacy Fallacy]

From: Chris Capel (
Date: Tue May 09 2006 - 15:39:23 MDT

On 5/9/06, Randall Randall <> wrote:
> On May 9, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Chris Capel wrote:
> > On 5/8/06, Michael Vassar <> wrote:
> >> For the information of Charles and others, with respect to the
> >> updating of
> >> beliefs, though not actions, it seems to me that I have met a
> >> grand total of
> >> four people rational enough that they don't have a strong expectation
> >> regarding the direction of disagreement after communicating that
> >> disagreement.
> >
> > This is quite interesting, but I don't understand what you mean by
> > "direction of disagreement". Could you rephrase?
> That means that after the reevaluation of each person's position,
> neither will know whether they or the other is closer to their
> original position.

You mean, that neither will know enough to predict what any remaining
disagreements between them might be, until they communicate further?
If you don't mean that I'm afraid I'm still confused.

Also, I don't see how that's what Michael was saying. If you tell
someone you disagree with something they've said, haven't you just
established the "direction of disagreement"? How could it be possible
not to have an expectation about that at this point? If you keep
talking about it, and resolve the disagreement, then of course the
disagreement is resolved, and who knows what other disagreements might
arise? But I don't see how Michael's two "disagreement" references
could have the same referent.

Chris Capel

"What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it
like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?"
-- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT