[Scea91]

Regarding the Conjunction fallacy my theory is that many people who are not used to math problems implicitly modify the question based on the context.

Instead of choosing from options:

1) Linda is A

2) Linda is A and B

they might actually understand the first statement in the context of the second statement as:

1) Linda is A and not B

[bsza]

FWIW, there was a similar experiment in the form of a dice game [1], and the phenomenon was still present.

[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QAK43nNCTQQycAcYe/conjunctio...

[jonathanstrange]

No, that's not what's going on. The reason for the fallacy is that we tend to find more detailed stories more convincing than less detailed stories.

However, not everybody, you can be trained against that. I've heard that police interrogators are less prone to this fallacy because they know that liars who had time to prepare often add dozens of details to their story that no ordinary person would remember.

[may_be_useful]

> 'fallacy is that we tend to find more detailed stories more convincing'

Anecdotic: Somebody asked: "Why do I feel often that angry, when I get a 'Typ5-Answer'?" (With the background an TYp5-Answer is located in the field of the manipulation of (someones) reality.

HINT: Typ1-Answer: labeling of 'Objects' / Type2-Answer: naming of coherencies / Ty ....(-;