28 Nov 2012, 9:28 am
Rascal77s wrote:
Quote:
The probability that the underside matches the top is 2/3. If you see heads, there are 3 not 2, equally possible scenarios:
1. You see the head half of a head-tail coin.
2. You see one side of a double-headed coin.
3. You see the other side of a double-headed coin.
In 2 of the 3 cases, the underside matches the top.
This result is so counter-intuitive that many people refuse to believe it. If you are skeptical, try experimenting with "coins" cut out of cardboard. Keep track of your results keep track of your results and see if your probabilities match what I've outlined above.
1. You see the head half of a head-tail coin.
2. You see one side of a double-headed coin.
3. You see the other side of a double-headed coin.
In 2 of the 3 cases, the underside matches the top.
This result is so counter-intuitive that many people refuse to believe it. If you are skeptical, try experimenting with "coins" cut out of cardboard. Keep track of your results keep track of your results and see if your probabilities match what I've outlined above.
OK so now to the real question. When I read the question I immediately knew the answer. I didn't think of it in terms of the answer in the book, I just examined the coins in my head for a second and knew. Like many of you the answer was so ridiculously obvious that I thought this must be a trick question. What really struck me was the bolded part of the quote about being counter intuitive to many people. I've been thinking about this and I still can't understand how it's counter-intuitive. In fact I am completely unable to 'see' it any other way. I wanted to wait to explain til page 2 to see if you guys would also be uncertain of your answer because it just seemed too obvious to be correct. It seems to me that most of you saw it the way that I did so my questions are as follows. Post your wisdom and thanks for being my guinea pigs
1. Is this an example of difference in perception in ASD?
2. Are there any studies you guys know of that have examined ASD vs. NT using something very similar to this type of problem(s)? I don't even know what category to search for.
3. Can anyone explain why 2/3 would be counter-intuitive and if it is counter-intuitive what other way is there to perceive the problem?
I, for one, DID respond to this.
And I will again.
The 2/3 answer IS the obvious answer. Therefore it is INTUITIVE, and NOT counterintuitive. So I dont know why a book would call it "counterintutive".
28 Nov 2012, 10:01 am
naturalplastic wrote:
I, for one, DID respond to this.
And I will again.
The 2/3 answer IS the obvious answer. Therefore it is INTUITIVE, and NOT counterintuitive. So I dont know why a book would call it "counterintutive".
And I will again.
The 2/3 answer IS the obvious answer. Therefore it is INTUITIVE, and NOT counterintuitive. So I dont know why a book would call it "counterintutive".
Sorry, I don't see how this answers any of the three questions he asked. Contradicting the book doesn't answer his question.
That said, I do see your point. It might help if you filled in the blanks for us.
