Talk:795: Conditional Risk - Revision history

2001:4091:A245:85A4:F576:CCBE:9879:92 at 21:13, 11 April 2026

2026-04-11T21:13:46Z

2024-11-05T19:07:43Z

2024-11-05T19:07:34Z

2021-10-19T11:17:28Z

Add reference to Pinker's Rationality Book

2016-09-08T11:41:26Z

2016-03-17T22:56:39Z

2016-03-17T15:02:51Z

2015-04-10T10:45:39Z

2015-04-10T10:44:37Z

2015-04-10T10:43:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:13, 11 April 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:

	This comic has been cited to illustrate the confusion of base vs conditional probability in Steven Pinker's new book [[https://books.google.com/books?id=aKIdEAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT85&ots=xxmg9CxrPO&dq=pinker%20xkcd%20lightning&pg=PT85#v=onepage&q=pinker%20xkcd%20lightning&f=false “Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters.”]] --[[User:Agovita\|Agovita]] ([[User talk:Agovita\|talk]]) 11:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)		This comic has been cited to illustrate the confusion of base vs conditional probability in Steven Pinker's new book [[https://books.google.com/books?id=aKIdEAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT85&ots=xxmg9CxrPO&dq=pinker%20xkcd%20lightning&pg=PT85#v=onepage&q=pinker%20xkcd%20lightning&f=false “Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters.”]] --[[User:Agovita\|Agovita]] ([[User talk:Agovita\|talk]]) 11:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	I think this comic is about conditional probability. You have the chance of being struck by a lightning 1:7000000 and the chance of being struck by lightning while walking in a thunderstorm citing this statistics, roughly 1:6.
		+	--[[Special:Contributions/2001:4091:A245:85A4:F576:CCBE:9879:92\|2001:4091:A245:85A4:F576:CCBE:9879:92]] 21:13, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 The line 'The annual death rate among people who know that statistic is one in six' clearly points out that the people who know the statistic tend to be dismissive about the danger of the lightning strikes and put themselves in danger. Even though the statistic is probably invented by the author, shouldn't it go in the explanation?
-I did not want to change the explanation without a discussion. (PS: I am a newbie here)
+I did not want to change the explanation without a discussion. (PS: I am a newbie here) [[User:A2658742|A2658742]] ([[User talk:A2658742|talk]]) 10:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)a2658742
 I'd like to point out that the "invented one in six statistic" is a roll of the dice. {{unsigned ip|162.158.90.161}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, 5 November 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	"I'm not American! So my risk is basically zero!"		"I'm not American! So my risk is basically zero!"

−	Is the risk to Americans so low because lightning concentrates on non-Americans?	+	Is the risk to Americans so low because lightning concentrates on non-Americans? [[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 15:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
−
−	[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 15:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:17, 19 October 2021
Line 16:		Line 16:
	1 in 6 is also the probability of shooting yourself in (classic) russian roulette.		1 in 6 is also the probability of shooting yourself in (classic) russian roulette.
	[[User:Siv3nIvy\|Siv3nIvy]] ([[User talk:Siv3nIvy\|talk]]) 11:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)		[[User:Siv3nIvy\|Siv3nIvy]] ([[User talk:Siv3nIvy\|talk]]) 11:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	This comic has been cited to illustrate the confusion of base vs conditional probability in Steven Pinker's new book [[https://books.google.com/books?id=aKIdEAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT85&ots=xxmg9CxrPO&dq=pinker%20xkcd%20lightning&pg=PT85#v=onepage&q=pinker%20xkcd%20lightning&f=false “Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters.”]] --[[User:Agovita\|Agovita]] ([[User talk:Agovita\|talk]]) 11:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:41, 8 September 2016
Line 13:		Line 13:

	I'd like to point out that the "invented one in six statistic" is a roll of the dice. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.90.161}}		I'd like to point out that the "invented one in six statistic" is a roll of the dice. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.90.161}}
		+
		+	1 in 6 is also the probability of shooting yourself in (classic) russian roulette.
		+	[[User:Siv3nIvy\|Siv3nIvy]] ([[User talk:Siv3nIvy\|talk]]) 11:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 17 March 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~I'd like to point out that the "invented one in six statistic" is a roll of the dice.~~
−
	"I'm not American! So my risk is basically zero!"		"I'm not American! So my risk is basically zero!"

Line 13:		Line 11:

	[[User:A2658742\|A2658742]] ([[User talk:A2658742\|talk]]) 10:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)a2658742		[[User:A2658742\|A2658742]] ([[User talk:A2658742\|talk]]) 10:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)a2658742
		+
		+	I'd like to point out that the "invented one in six statistic" is a roll of the dice. {{unsigned ip\|162.158.90.161}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:02, 17 March 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	I'd like to point out that the "invented one in six statistic" is a roll of the dice.
		+
	"I'm not American! So my risk is basically zero!"		"I'm not American! So my risk is basically zero!"

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:44, 10 April 2015
Line 10:		Line 10:
	I did not want to change the explanation without a discussion. (PS: I am a newbie here)		I did not want to change the explanation without a discussion. (PS: I am a newbie here)

−	[[User:A2658742\|A2658742]] ([[User talk:A2658742\|talk]]) 10:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)a2658742	+	[[User:A2658742\|A2658742]] ([[User talk:A2658742\|talk]]) 10:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)a2658742

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:43, 10 April 2015
Line 4:		Line 4:

	[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 15:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)		[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 15:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	The line 'The annual death rate among people who know that statistic is one in six' clearly points out that the people who know the statistic tend to be dismissive about the danger of the lightning strikes and put themselves in danger. Even though it is probably invented by the author, shouldn't that go in the explanation?
		+
		+	I did not want to change the explanation without a discussion. (PS: I am a newbie here)
		+
		+	[[User:A2658742\|A2658742]] ([[User talk:A2658742\|talk]]) 10:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)a2658742