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 to what is known, analytically or empirically, about the 2-children problem.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 175-179 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Pragmatics and Cognition |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2010 |
Keywords
- 2-children problem
- Brainteasers
- Conditional probability
- Probability paradoxes
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'A commentary on Mel Rutherford's 'On the use and misuse of the "two children" brainteaser''. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver