Re:Why Do Rich People Love Endurance Sports? (2017)
by handedness on Tuesday January 29, 2019 @01:31PM
(#19028702)
This type of faulty reasoning also frequently takes the form of affirming the consequent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
(P→Q,Q)→P
It happens often when people have a limited consideration set of possible causes, often due to a natural degree of ignorance or lack of experience relating to the subject matter area, e.g., a small child sees a wet sidewalk and assumes it rained, because they aren't yet aware of sprinklers (or garden hoses, etc.)
(If rain→wet sidewalk, wet sidewalk)→rain
The title alone might be clumsily restated as:
(If amateur endurance athlete→rich, rich)→amateur endurance athlete
Re:Why Do Rich People Love Endurance Sports? (2017)
by astazangasta on Tuesday January 29, 2019 @10:29AM
(#19027058)
Sticking my frequentist nose in here, this is maybe better described as the Base Rate Fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
Re:Why Do Rich People Love Endurance Sports? (2017)
by EForEndeavour on Tuesday January 29, 2019 @12:12PM
(#19027964)
Nice, thanks! Though that page mentions and uses Bayes' Theorem a lot ;)
Confusion of the inverse is the assumption that the probability of A given B is equal to the probability of B given A. In symbols, the fallacy is falsely assuming P(A|B) = P(B|A). You have to use Bayes' Theorem to convert from a conditional probability to its inverse:
P(B|A)⋅P(A) = P(A|B)⋅P(B)