1887
Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Rutherford (2010) criticizes the way some people have analyzed the 2-children problem, claiming (correctly) that slight nuances in the problem’s formulation can change the correct answer. However, his own data demonstrate that even when there is a unique correct answer, participants give intuitive answers that differ from it systematically — replicating the data reported by those he criticizes. Thus, his critique reduces to an admonition to use care in formulating and analyzing this brainteaser — which is always a good idea — but contributes little what is known, analytically or empirically, about the 2-children problem.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18.1.08bar
2010-01-01
2019-10-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18.1.08bar
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 2-children problem , brainteasers , conditional probability and probability paradoxes
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error