[DrRocket]

amanda more, on 7 August 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

Any books on that?
There are many very odd things happening now. In anyones personal life, I don't find that intense logic helps very well in day to day life. A well developed EQ appears to provide an easier time of it.

I have found the very disturbing gamemanship in Congress to have had no logical basis.

This stuff must be a symptom of an underlying malaise.

Could fear cause people to lose their heads? Is there an example to use where people can find probability more intuitive?

There are the scientists/technologists and the everybody else. The "everybody else" runs this country.

They are ignorant of even the most basic "words" in the language of science - math. Could this lack be one of the root causes of what appears to be crazy behavior? They can't understand arithmetic and so cannot understand the effects of their behavior?

Not sure what kind of books you are interested in.

Two of the best probability books are Loeve's Probability Theory and Feller's An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications. Probability and Measure by Billingsley is also very good.

For statistics I like van der Waerden's Mathematical Statistics and Cramer's Mathematical Methods of Statistics.

However your observation that if the government pays out 50% on a lottery then the government also keeps 50% should not require a book, but should in fact be obvious to the casual observer. The reality that this is not obvious to some people is merely a comment on what is meant by "average intelligence".

[amanda more]

DrRocket, on 7 August 2011 - 10:21 PM, said:

Not sure what kind of books you are interested in.

Two of the best probability books are Loeve's Probability Theory and Feller's An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications. Probability and Measure by Billingsley is also very good.

For statistics I like van der Waerden's Mathematical Statistics and Cramer's Mathematical Methods of Statistics.

However your observation that if the government pays out 50% on a lottery then the government also keeps 50% should not require a book, but should in fact be obvious to the casual observer. The reality that this is not obvious to some people is merely a comment on what is meant by "average intelligence".

Thank you. I'll either dig out my own or check out one of these.

"Probability is often not intuitive and goes over the heads of many more. "


I think people do use probability but don't think of it in math terms. I think if they did think of it in math terms their odds would be wildly off. Yet, they have a feel for risk to get through life. Crossing the street. Necessary but needs vigilance. Crossing a sidewalk. Not as much vigilance etc.


In fact some streetwise kid can beat out an absentminded professor every time.


They can pass 8th grade probability. So majority intelligence is good enough for that. As I am finding today, in our economy everyone is blinded by money and decisions about money. Lawyers and journalists are by and large not stupid. Yet they generally can't handle arithmetic. Why?

[DrRocket]

Quote

Lawyers and journalists are by and large not stupid. Yet they generally can't handle arithmetic. Why?

I know of one former mathematics professor who is now a lawyer.

I have encountered some very stupid lawyers.

I taught college algebra to a local anchor man. He was one of the better students in the class. I have encountered reporters who could not count their fingers.

Generalizations are usually wrong.

A lot of people cannot handle arithmetic. A lot can.

This post has been edited by DrRocket: 8 August 2011 - 02:32 AM

[amanda more]

DrRocket, on 8 August 2011 - 02:31 AM, said:

[size="2"]

I know of one former mathematics professor who is now a lawyer.

I have encountered some very stupid lawyers.

I taught college algebra to a local anchor man. He was one of the better students in the class. I have encountered reporters who could not count their fingers.

Generalizations are usually wrong.

A lot of people cannot handle arithmetic. A lot can.

Scientists and technologists can.
In fact they can speak math. I'm not saying all should do that. Instead of us having to put things in language, English why can't they (the other half) at least learn to understand the baby speech of probability?

You also made a comment about logical thinking. So a tea partyer say who explains calmly some weird party line feels as if he is being logical. He is calmly explaining and seeks to give that impression. The impression and comraderie is so important he recoils at being called on it.

He finds -logical thinking- a hindrance.

Hence if logical thinking impedes goals then that is why many avoid it? Or are their brains set up so they can't do it?

Have you met any over 160 IQ types who doesn't do logical thinking? I'm thinking there have been dictators who are smart. What comes out of their mouths may not make logical sense. I assumed they are being duplicitous. But maybe not.

So, is there a way to explain to a 3 year old my example of a lottery that could be understood? I started to ask around about the lottery for the basis of a book I want to write. If I can't explain this simple example, I'm stuck.

[DrRocket]

khaled, on 2 August 2011 - 09:42 PM, said:

Bignose, on 6 August 2011 - 03:09 AM, said:

Khaled, DrRocket is right. Some of your equations are quite wrong.



For example, this equation is very naive in its assumptions.

This is only right if the probability of every event is exactly equal, but that is hardly necessary. Consider an unfair coin, where heads will come up much more often than one half. Your equation above is wrong, because even though the coin is weighted to be unfair, there are still two outcomes, yet the probability of heads is already stated to not be 1/2.

It is only right if one in addition to the assumption that all elementary events are equally likely one makes the unconventional interpretation of "outcomes" as "possible outcomes" rather than "observed occuences of A". That may be what Khaled means, but it is contrary to normal useage.

If one uses the conventional interpretation of "outcomes" then his equation would result in the probability of A being inversely proportional to the relative frequency of occurrence of A, which is backwards.

[amanda more]

DrRocket, on 8 August 2011 - 02:31 AM, said:

[size="2"]



A lot of people cannot handle arithmetic. A lot can.

Check this out.

Assuming it means that even low income smart people have participation in the market which would show a greater risk compared to their assets- smart people gamble on the stock market!

Not all purchasing is a gamble of course. But first glance looks that some of it is.

All vices appear to me independent of IQ. So in that way understanding that high risk tolerance is gambling then high IQ also bet.

No wonder people get so emotional when you tell them the stock market will likely crash tomorrow. It is money they can't afford to lose.

http://www.cxoadviso...not-algorithms/

Cool,huh? This may be as simple as the sea change propaganda that has allowed gambling-lottery to be seen as a game and gambling-stock market to be seen as an investment. Hey the lottery only takes 50%.