Confusion of the inverse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confusion of the inverse, also called the conditional probability fallacy, is a logical fallacy whereupon a conditional probability is equivocated with its inverse [1].

In one study, physicians were asked what the chances of malignancy with a 1% prior probability of occurring and a positive test result from a diagnostic known to be 80% accurate with a 10% false positive rate for that type of test [2]. 95 out of 100 physicians responded the probability of malignancy would be around 75%, apparently because the physicians believed that the chances of malignancy given a positive test result were approximately the same as the chances of a positive test result given malignancy.

The correct probability of malignancy given a positive test result as stated above is 7.5%, derived via Bayes' theorem:

\Pr(malignant|positive) = \frac{\Pr(positive|malignant)\Pr(malignant)}{\Pr(positive|malignant)\Pr(malignant) + \Pr(positive|benign)\Pr(benign)}

\Pr(malignant|positive) = \frac{(.80 * .01)}{(.80 * .01) + (.10 * .99)} = 0.075

Other examples
  • Hard drug users tend to use marijuana; therefore, marijuana users tend to use hard drugs (the first probability is marijuana use given hard drug use, the second is hard drug use given marijuana use) [3]
  • Most accidents occur within 25 miles from home; therefore, you are safest when you are far from home [4]
  • Terrorists tend to have an engineering background; so, engineers have a tendency towards terrorism [5]

For other errors in conditional probability, see the Monty Hall problem and the base rate fallacy. Compare to illicit conversion.

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Plous (1993) pp. 131-134
  2. ^ Eddy (1982). Description simplified as in Plous, 1993.
  3. ^ Hastie & Dawes (2001) pp. 122-123
  4. ^ Ibid.
  5. ^ see Engineers make good terrorists?. Slashdot (2008-04-03). Retrieved on 2008-04-25.

[edit] References

  • Eddy, David M. (1982). Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky (Eds.) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 249-267). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hastie, Reid; Robyn Dawes (2001). Rational Choice in an Uncertain World. ISBN 076192275X. 
  • Plous, Scott (1993). The Psychology of Judgment and Decisionmaking. ISBN 0070504776. 

[edit] External links