21 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Maya Bar-Hillel [19]M. Bar-Hillel [2]
  1. The Base-Rate Fallacy in Probability Judgments.Maya Bar-Hillel - 1980 - Acta Psychologica 44 (3):211-233.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   39 citations  
  2.  22
    Some Teasers Concerning Conditional Probabilities.Maya Bar-Hillel & Ruma Falk - 1982 - Cognition 11 (2):109-122.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  3. Newcomb's Paradox Revisited.Maya Bar-Hillel & Avishai Margalit - 1972 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 23 (4):295-304.
  4.  39
    How Vicious Are Cycles of Intransitive Choice?Maya Bar-Hillel & Avishai Margalit - 1988 - Theory and Decision 24 (2):119-145.
  5.  18
    The Irrational, the Unreasonable, and the Wrong.Avishai Margalit & Maya Bar-Hillel - 1981 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4 (3):346-349.
  6. In Defence of the Classical Notion of Evidence.Maya Bar-Hillel & Avishai Margalit - 1979 - Mind 88 (352):576-583.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  7.  12
    On the Subjective Probability of Compound Events.Maya Bar-Hillel - 1973 - Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 9 (3):396-406.
    Subjects were requested to choose between gambles, where the outcome of one gamble depended on a single elementary event, and the other depended on an event compounded of a series of such elementary events. The data supported the hypothesis that the subjective probability of a compound event is systematically biased in the direction of the probability of its components resulting in overestimation of conjunctive events and underestimation of disjunctive events. Studies pertaining to this topic are discussed.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  8.  32
    The Elusive Wishful Thinking Effect.Maya Bar-Hillel & David Budescu - 1995 - Thinking and Reasoning 1 (1):71 – 103.
  9.  64
    Expecting the Unexpected.Avishai Margalit & Maya Bar-Hillel - 1983 - Philosophia 13 (3-4):263-288.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  10.  40
    How to Solve Probability Teasers.Maya Bar-Hillel - 1989 - Philosophy of Science 56 (2):348-358.
    Recently, Nathan (1986) criticized Bar-Hillel and Falk's (1982) analysis of some classical probability puzzles on the grounds that they wrongheadedly applied mathematics to the solving of problems suffering from "ambiguous informalities". Nathan's prescription for solving such problems boils down to assuring in advance that they are uniquely and formally soluble--though he says little about how this is to be done. Unfortunately, in real life problems seldom show concern as to whether their naturally occurring formulation is or is not ambiguous, does (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  11.  79
    Gideon's Paradox — a Paradox of Rationality.Maya Bar-Hillel & Avishai Margalit - 1985 - Synthese 63 (2):139 - 155.
  12. Representativeness and Fallacies of Probability Judgment.Maya Bar-Hillel - 1984 - Acta Psychologica 55 (2):91-107.
  13.  41
    Ideal Evidence, Relevance and Second-Order Probabilities.Maya Bar-Hillel - 1982 - Erkenntnis 17 (3):273 - 290.
    The concepts of supportive evidence and of relevant evidence seem very closely related to each other. Supportive evidence is clearly always relevant as well. But must relevant evidence be defined as evidence which is either supportive or weakeking? In an explicit or implicit manner, this is indeed the position of many philosophers. The paradox of ideal evidence, however, shows us that this is to restrictive. Besides increasing or decreasing the probability attached to some hypothesis, evidence can alter or interact with (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14. Each Year@ Ogn&~ N is Obliged to Request the Help of a Certain Number of Guest Reviewers Who Assist in the Assessment of Manuscripts. Without Their Cooperation the Journal Would Not Be Able to Maintain its High Standards. We Are Happy to Be Able to Thank the Following People for Their Help in Refereeing Manuscripts During 1989.J. Alegria, W. Badecker, M. Bar-Hillel, D. Bekerian, E. Bisiach, P. Bloom, K. Bock, G. Boolos, V. Bruce & B. Byrne - 1990 - Cognition 35:101.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  15.  26
    Scoring and Keying Multiple Choice Tests: A Case Study in Irrationality. [REVIEW]Maya Bar-Hillel, David Budescu & Yigal Attali - 2005 - Mind and Society 4 (1):3-12.
    We offer a case-study in irrationality, showing that even in a high stakes context, intelligent and well trained professionals may adopt dominated practices. In multiple-choice tests one cannot distinguish lucky guesses from answers based on knowledge. Test-makers have dealt with this problem by lowering the incentive to guess, through penalizing errors (called formula scoring), and by eliminating various cues for outperforming random guessing (e.g., a preponderance of correct answers in middle positions), through key balancing. These policies, though widespread and intuitively (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16. Studies of Representativeness.Maya Bar-Hillel - 1982 - In Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic & Amos Tversky (eds.), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press. pp. 69--83.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. Similarity and Probability.Maya Bar-Hillel - 1974 - Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 11 (2):277-282.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  18.  10
    To Err is Human.Maya Bar-Hillel & Avishai Margalit - 1983 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6 (2):246-248.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19.  8
    A Commentary on Mel Rutherford’s ‘On the Use and Misuse of the “Two Children” Brainteaser’.Maya Bar-Hillel - 2010 - Pragmatics and Cognition 18 (1):175-179.
    Rutherford criticizes the way some people have analyzed the 2-children problem, claiming 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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20.  1
    A Commentary On Mel Rutherford's `on The Use And Misuse Of The “Two Children“ Brainteaser'.Maya Bar-Hillel - 2010 - Radical Philosophy Review of Books 18 (1):175-179.
    Rutherford criticizes the way some people have analyzed the 2-children problem, claiming 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 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21. Thanks to Our Guest Reviewers.T. K. F. Au, T. German, D. Plaut, W. Badecker, E. Gibson, K. Plunkett, R. Baillargeon, M. T. Guasti, S. Prasada & M. Bar-Hillel - 1997 - Cognition 63:243.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark