\nContinuing from my post yesterday<\/a>, I’ll explore a connection to it: believing what you see, vs not.<\/p>\n The base rate fallacy means that people believe what they see even if, statistically, it’s unlikely or impossible. The base rate<\/em> means how likely, or unlikely, the observation is given “real life.” The fallacy<\/em> means believing your observation even in spite of its remote likelihood.<\/p>\n Yet, a limit of statistics is that they don’t tell what’s happening, just how likely it is.<\/p>\n Here’s an example: oil hit -37.30 on April 20, 2020. I’ve never heard of oil being negative, so statistics tell me that it’s so unlikely, I shouldn’t believe it even if I see it. Yet, it happened.<\/p>\n Someone avoiding the base rate fallacy will dismiss an event that shouldn’t be possible, even if they see it: “I saw a ghost, but of course they don’t exist, so I couldn’t have seen one.” If that person comes to believe in ghosts because they saw one, they’re “falling for” the base rate fallacy.<\/p>\n So, did everyone just imagine oil prices were negative?<\/p>\n Source:<\/p>\ncnbc.com<\/a><\/p>\n en.epicenter.works<\/a><\/p>\nJack of Oracle Tutoring by Jack and Diane,<\/a> Campbell River, BC.\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Tutoring statistics, so many inroads are available. The tutor continues about the base rate fallacy. Continuing from my post yesterday, I’ll explore a connection to it: believing what you see, vs not. The base rate fallacy means that people believe …<\/p>\n