Sorry to say it, but this certainly smells like cargo-cult science. First, I'm not a scientist, and not even a Nobel-prize winner, but for example I cannot understand what question 3) has to do with "science". I did have 2 dates in the past month, but I'm at one of the lowest points of my life, because, guess what? the missing context really matters (I'm about to get divorced).
The same goes for question 4) . I chose A, "Yes", assuming it was a good movie worth seeing, but lacking the above-mentioned "context" (is it "Forrest Gump" or "Delta Force IV"?) any answer you give it's just to satisfy the interviewer. And yes, people DO go and see movies that they know they're bad.
A little less reading on "behavioral economics" or "animal spirits" and a little more reading of Hume will do everyone a ton of good.
The questions aren't science - that statistics that predict that most people will get them wrong are.
Or rather - the theories which predict how people will (statistically) make sub-optimal decisions in certain circumstances are science: they make predictions that can be tested.
I believe paganel is referring exactly to the "sub-optimal decision" part, in the explanation (not the questions themselves).
Can you expand on that? The point of the article is that people will (statistically) get the questions wrong, or at least have biases in their responses.
For example, in the first question the grandparent poster may well have had good reasons to answer as they did, but that doesn't discount the fact that most people are vulnerable to the attribute substitution bias[1].
And yes, this quiz seems a load of underspecified cargo-cult horsecrap.
That's to be expected isn't it? They are trying to show five different statistical effects in five questions. To do it properly they would have to ask 10's of questions for each one, but I don't think that would work for a Vanity Fair sidebar article. Instead, they tried to find questions that would demonstrate the principles to most people.
What I meant (and what I believe paganel meant) is not that most people won't get such questions wrong, statistically. They probably will, and the original research probably shows that conclusively.
It's the part of this quiz/post that is supposed to explain why that irks scientifically inclined folks (as manifested many times in this thread :) Here the author missed crucial bits that made the question+explanation originally work, and all that's left is some well-meaning cargo cult nonsense.
Whether it appeared in a sidebar or not is no excuse for getting it wrong imo -- they could have stuck with the original questions if they didn't understand the implications of modifying their premises.
If you want the actual science instead of the quiz consider the book Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. It's better than Hume. For something you can read right now that might get you to care: http://singinst.org/upload/cognitive-biases.pdf
The same goes for question 4) . I chose A, "Yes", assuming it was a good movie worth seeing, but lacking the above-mentioned "context" (is it "Forrest Gump" or "Delta Force IV"?) any answer you give it's just to satisfy the interviewer. And yes, people DO go and see movies that they know they're bad.
A little less reading on "behavioral economics" or "animal spirits" and a little more reading of Hume will do everyone a ton of good.