Illogical but Understandable
Reading my Cognition (Ashcraft, 2002) textbook, I came across an interesting passage in Chapter 11 dealing with Decisions, Judgments, and Reasoning–specifically, a coin toss:
In our coin toss example, we all know that getting heads or tails is a chance or random process. Given that tossing coins is random, we judge the sequence HHTHTT as much more likely or probably than HHHTTT because the alternating sequence HHTHTT resembles the outcome of a random process more than HHHTTT. The thinking here, illogical but nonetheless understandable, is that a random process ought to look random; it ought to generate a random-looking outcome.
Now there’s an interesting phenomenon. Illogical but understandable. So is it logical in a different sense than the way we typically understand logic? What is the neurological mechanism by which we can understand this selection if it’s not logical? Does this mean that it IS logical on some level?
5 Responses to “Illogical but Understandable”
-
Chris Says:
November 19th, 2004 at 20:38:55Nice example.
I wouldn’t say it is logical on any level. Rather , it is more likely a fallacy of logic that we all share. I think of it this way:
If we are presented with HHHTTT, we are unlikely to conclude that this very tidy series is actually a random outcome. HHTHTT, on the other hand, would be more likely to alert us to the possibility that it is random.
I want to commend you on your site…very enjoyable reading
-
Michael Says:
November 19th, 2004 at 21:00:58Hey wait, I have readers?
Thanks Chris, for your comment; it’s nice to virtually meet you! I’m still at work but plan on bookmarking your blog at home.It’s an interesting point you put forth. How shall we qualify fallacies that we all share? That’s just terribly intriguing to me, like a shared illusion or something. (I’m interested in researching this whole concept, “standard deviations” from true logic.)
Thanks again for your comment, nice to know people are reading
-
November 20th, 2004 at 03:17:13I’m sure I have even less readers than you. Actually, you are probably the only one so far, but then, its a very new blog
I like your wording of standard deviations from true logic. What’s more interesting, and here is where the “illogical but nonetheless understandable” comment comes in, is that we are fully aware that this is illogical, but instinct pushes us in the other direction.
The idea of shared illusions is rather creepy in a matrix sort of way…when something feels right, but intellectually we know it is not. -
Ama Says:
November 30th, 2004 at 20:37:55I like how I didn’t even realize I could leave you something here you’d read later. I’m a putz.
-
December 1st, 2004 at 02:21:36Not a putz! I just didn’t make the font big enough.
) Hi Ama! By the way, to what you said:
I think philosophers would call your “illogical but understandable” something like logic based on intuition. Intuition tells you that any random system should generate random results : the same idea applies in mathmatics, that infinity generates more infinity. Although, chaos should move toward order, and the other way around. Also illogical, and while not wholy understandable, acceptable
That’s a good point. I’m actually going to post again soon in this vein; as a hint of what’s to come, think “bounded rationality.”
November 19th, 2004 at 20:38:55
Nice example.
I wouldn’t say it is logical on any level. Rather , it is more likely a fallacy of logic that we all share. I think of it this way:
If we are presented with HHHTTT, we are unlikely to conclude that this very tidy series is actually a random outcome. HHTHTT, on the other hand, would be more likely to alert us to the possibility that it is random.
I want to commend you on your site…very enjoyable reading
November 19th, 2004 at 21:00:58
Hey wait, I have readers?
Thanks Chris, for your comment; it’s nice to virtually meet you! I’m still at work but plan on bookmarking your blog at home.
It’s an interesting point you put forth. How shall we qualify fallacies that we all share? That’s just terribly intriguing to me, like a shared illusion or something. (I’m interested in researching this whole concept, “standard deviations” from true logic.)
Thanks again for your comment, nice to know people are reading
November 20th, 2004 at 03:17:13
I’m sure I have even less readers than you. Actually, you are probably the only one so far, but then, its a very new blog
I like your wording of standard deviations from true logic. What’s more interesting, and here is where the “illogical but nonetheless understandable” comment comes in, is that we are fully aware that this is illogical, but instinct pushes us in the other direction.
The idea of shared illusions is rather creepy in a matrix sort of way…when something feels right, but intellectually we know it is not.
November 30th, 2004 at 20:37:55
I like how I didn’t even realize I could leave you something here you’d read later. I’m a putz.
December 1st, 2004 at 02:21:36
Not a putz! I just didn’t make the font big enough.
) Hi Ama! By the way, to what you said:
That’s a good point. I’m actually going to post again soon in this vein; as a hint of what’s to come, think “bounded rationality.”