I'm not sure if I'm disturbed by the science or the journalism (which means I'm disappointed by the journalism, regardless).
A key here is that, although they are establishing that one person is better than the other, they're doing it in a test in which uncertainty is an obvious intended consequence of the task. That PersonA guesses correctly even, say, 75% of the time doesn't tell us *which* 75% of the time s/he's guessing correctly. It also doesn't show that there's a reward for agreeing "correctly" so there's no incentive to care about being right.
I suppose we could say that this means we're predisposed to let people have an opinion during a bull session, but unless there was some reason that the teams were eager to be correct, this doesn't tell us anything past that.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2015-03-23 03:14 pm (UTC)A key here is that, although they are establishing that one person is better than the other, they're doing it in a test in which uncertainty is an obvious intended consequence of the task. That PersonA guesses correctly even, say, 75% of the time doesn't tell us *which* 75% of the time s/he's guessing correctly. It also doesn't show that there's a reward for agreeing "correctly" so there's no incentive to care about being right.
I suppose we could say that this means we're predisposed to let people have an opinion during a bull session, but unless there was some reason that the teams were eager to be correct, this doesn't tell us anything past that.