Resisting intuition
28 December, 2012 at 13:40 | Posted in Varia | 6 CommentsOne of the main functions of System 2 is to monitor and control thoughts and actions “suggested” by System 1 … For an example, here is a simple puzzle. Do not try to solve it but listen to your intuition:
A bat and ball cost $1.10.
The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.
How much does the ball cost?
A number came to your mind. The number, of course, is 10: 10 cents. The distinctive mark of this easy puzzle is that it evokes an answer that is intuitive, appealing, and wrong … The right answer is 5 cents.
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
Dwayne Woods on Nancy Cartwright on RCTs Dwayne Woods on Freshwater macroeconomics… Wad on Lars E O Svensson om penningpo… Dwayne Woods on Wicksell on market fundamental… Dwayne Woods on Wicksell on market fundamental… Dave Holden on Flawed macroeconomic mode… Dave Holden on Flawed macroeconomic mode… Jan Milch on Further suggestions for Krugma… Jan Milch on Further suggestions for Krugma… Jerry Brown on Further suggestions for Krugma… Reading List
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
If the bat and the ball cost $1.10 my intuition tells me this must be a very old problem.
Comment by Francisco Urbano García— 28 December, 2012 #
This is similar to the thinking that keeps people from understanding closed-system arithmetic…and the money system…there is a feedback loop that affects the solution. The example provided here is one of the simplest examples. Because the total is known, the solution is always a matter of distribution.
It also demonstrates why students in algebra tend to not like word problems. The solution requires solving two equations with two unknowns (or trial and error).
x+y=1.1; x=cost of the bat, y=cost of the ball.
y=x+1; substituting for y…
x+(x+1)=1.1;
2x=0.1;
x=0.05; the cost of the ball
y=1.05; the cost of the bat
I apologize in advance if I am pointing out the obvious.
Comment by paul— 28 December, 2012 #
Obvious maybe, but requires “rigorous” thinking. Kahneman showed about we typically use two modes of thinking, snap using intuition and sharp using calculation. We save time using snap judgment and only resort to rigorous thinking when it seems called for. However, it turns out that most people are not so good at making this distinction correctly and err by rushing to judgment. On the other hand, we probably all know a few people that waste a lot of time on rigor they don’t really need given the circumstances.
Comment by Tom Hickey— 28 December, 2012 #
“[W]e probably all know a few people that waste a lot of time on rigor they don’t really need given the circumstances” – we certainly do, and that’s something not only Kahneman has emphasized, but also e.g. Gerd Gigerenzer (http://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/what-can-economists-know/)
Comment by Lars P Syll— 28 December, 2012 #
hmm.. personally I think intuition is underrated, I mean is this the norm or an edge case.
Comment by Dave Holden— 28 December, 2012 #
if you want feedback try the Parrondo paradox!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrondo%27s_paradox
Comment by marc— 28 December, 2012 #