Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GlaziusF" data-source="post: 4481671" data-attributes="member: 74166">Well, it's really several studies. You can pick a bone with whichever one you choose.It starts with GA Miller's seminal presentation on the limits of human working memory, "The Magical Number Seven, Plus Or Minus Two", originally published in the 1956 Psychological Review.From there is the notional expansion of working memory capacity via chunking, as seen in Chase and Simon's study "Perception in Chess", issue 4, page 55, of Cognitive Psychology 1973Most of Tversky's body of work develops the notion that humans judge probability by making mental sets. There's some good work in "[SIZE=-1]Essential Sources in the Scientific Study of Consciousness", published in 2003, particularly Tversky and Kahneman's chapter, "Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability". Tversky never got much professional recognition for his work with Kahneman, who received a Nobel Prize in Economics for explaining seemingly irrational economic decisions, 6 years after Tversky's death in 1996. [/SIZE]But the research that most directly supports my statements on human judgments of probability is probably Hertwig et al's "Decisions From Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice", from the 2004 run of Psychological Science, volume 15, issue 8, pp 534-539. In brief, when people are confronted with the possibility of rare events they tend to overestimate their frequency when working from textual descriptions and, more practically, underestimate their frequency when working from real experience of them.</blockquote>

Verification