[Guest]

SOMEONE WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT FOOTBALL, MAKES PREDICTIONS ABOUT A SERIES OF WORLD CUP MATCHES, JUST ON THE BASIS OF HIS INTUITIONS, PREFERENCES OR ''EXTERNAL'' DATA WHATSOEVER..

IT HAPPENS, THOUGH, THAT HE FAILS IN ALL PREDICTIONS (A).

HE SOON REALISES (A), AND WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE ASKS HIM TO MAKE A PREDICTION ABOUT THE FINAL, HE SAIS THAT HIS INTUITION LEADS HIM TO THE BELIEF OF X'S PREVALENCE OVER Z.

NEVERTHELESS, KEEPING IN MIND (A), HE ADDS THAT IT SEEMS QUITE LOGICAL THAT Z WILL PREVAIL OVER X (FOR ALL HIS PREDICTONS SO FAR HAVE FAILED).

IS HE RIGHT IN HOLDING TWO CONTRADICTORY BELIEFS? OR DO WE HAVE TO ASSIGN TO HIS STOCK OF BELIEF'S ONLY ONE OF THEM (AND WHICH ONE)? FOR, OTHERWISE, IT SEEMS THAT IN ANY CASE HE WILL BE RIGHT IN HIS PREDICTION

[Guest]

Wuts with the caps?

[Guest]

I don't think he really believes in 2 different things. He realizes that all his predictions were wrong and, since this is very unlikely to happen (the probability of guessing all wrong is the same as that of guessing all right), he assumes that everything he believes about football is backwards, and since his beliefs point X as the winner, he is going to bet Z will be the winner. In other words, he is inverting the factors he had put on his "equation".

And as Nick pointed, putting the entire text in upper case is considered impolite.

[unreality]

There are at least two ways to look at information: "intuitively" based on evolutionary/instinctual/early-learned shortcuts about the practical world we grow up and survive in. Intuition can lead us to believe both correct and incorrect things - a lot of times the incorrect beliefs happen when we apply intuition to something not originally covered by intuition or in any other situation where something might be "non-intuitive" or where having correct intuition about that subject was not advantageous for our survival. Intuition is tied in a lot with emotion as well.

We'll say that our main character's decisions were mostly based on intuition about the teams and his previous memories of games all kind of loosely pooled into binary decisions. That's what you implied anyway.

Now realizing with logic that he's been consistently INCORRECT, we can look at the second way to look at information: logic, reasoning, etc - a higher-order evaluation of what we perceive, striving to be independent of biological wetware and instead find truth not just convenience. So with this logic he can now invert his intuitions.

So intuitively he still feels that one team will win. But with logic he can (if he's strong-willed enough) override this intuition to do what in the past gave him a more statistical likelihood of guessing correctly, even if it goes against what he might feel

[Guest]

Sorry for writing the entire text in caps. I'm Greek, and to our culture one isn't impolite doing so.

As far as the topic i introduced is concerned, i totally agree with the 'unreality' user. The question, though, is if the inductive belief, the one based on statistics, observations of the past and so on, cancels automatically the first one, the one based on mere intuition

Or, if the latter belief still holds, can the predictor claim that in any case, whether x or z prevails, his prediction has been verified?

[unreality]

]if the inductive belief, the one based on statistics, observations of the past and so on, cancels automatically the first one, the one based on mere intuition

what do you mean by cancel?

Or, if the latter belief still holds, can the predictor claim that in any case, whether x or z prevails, his prediction has been verified?

no not without defining prediction.

his BELIEF/INTUITION/GUT/etc tells him x

his PREDICTION/REASONING/etc tells him z

his "prediction" is only verified in the event of z winning. If x wins then he needs to consider this datum in the future for future predictions but nevertheless his prediction was wrong (though his instinct was correct in that instance).

In other words I think his "prediction" is only what he actually predicts, eg what he logically overrode his intuition with, aka, Z

[Guest]

by 'cancel' i mean that because he finally gives more credit to the statistics so far, his intuition means nothing (i.e., it doesn't count any more).

On the other hand, even in case of x's win he can still say that 'my intuition about the final's outcome was infallible. X's win first came in my mind, and that's happened.

[unreality]

his intuition still matters because his logical prediction is a metacognition based on his own intuition

[Guest]

He can say that his intuition predicted X's victory, but that means nothing if he believed that his intuition was wrong. In the end, all he has to do is predict who's going to win, based on whatever criteria he chooses. He maybe right or wrong.

[Guest]

well, his meta-prediction contradicts his intuition-based-initial prediction

[Guest]

Exactly, so he has to make up his mind and decide which one he's going to believe in. Once the game ends, he will know wether he picked the right one, but if he's wrong there's no point in claiming the other prediction was right.

[Guest]

i totally agree with your last response. I additionally say, and i want your opinion about it, that a paradox is raised in such a cognitive situation, if someone (almost) equally believes both in his own intuition, as well as in statistics. If this is viable, i don't know if 'humans rationality' is challenged, or if it still stands immune...

[unreality]

we can never be completely rational and objective, it's impossible to separate our higher level mind from our lower level mind entirely.

[Guest]

Yeah it's kind of a paradox, because he believes Z is going to win based on the fact that he believes X is going to win... Maybe he just thinks he's like Mick Jagger (I still blame him for Brazil's loss on the Cup). But if he's like Mick Jagger, then it doesn't matter, because whoever he points as the winner will be the loser. Jokes aside, I think we need to consider what made him Disregard his primary decision. Maybe he just thinks that, statistically, he's more likely to be wrong, so by changing he's more likely to be right. Or maybe he actually believes he used a flawless "formula" on the previous games, but that formula determines the loser rather than the winner. It's a little irrational, perhaps, but rationality combined with irrationality is what makes us human, at least according to animes (sorry, couldn't resist).

[Guest]

thank you. your response was much informative to me. but, one point from your response. what do you mean

'he believes Z is going to win based on the fact that he believes X is going to win'?

[Guest]

oh,ok, i grasped it

[Guest]

I was just repeating what you said in the beginning: he thinks X is going to win, but since he was wrong on all his previous predictions, he decides to change his guess to Z and try to turn the odds on his favor. On a second thought, I don't think this is a paradox. He simply thinks that he's determining the loser when he tries to determine the winner, or that he is wrong more often than he is right, so changing increases his chances.

[Guest]

so, don't you think that there is aparadox, at least in what you've said that

'he believes Z is going to win based on the fact that he believes X is going to win'?.

[Guest]

isn't a paradox that from the fact that someone believes that x will win, he concludes that z will win (of course added that 'whoever i intuitively think will win in fact loses')?

Or -reversely- it isn't a paradox, for the same reason, i.e. that

someone doesn't conclude z will win solely on the basis of his intuition that x will win, but TOGETHER with the premise that 'whoever i intuitively think will win in fact loses'?

[Guest]

Or -reversely- it isn't a paradox, for the same reason, i.e. that

someone doesn't conclude z will win solely on the basis of his intuition that x will win, but TOGETHER with the premise that 'whoever i intuitively think will win in fact loses'?

Yes, I failed to find the right words to say that (don't know why, it's so simple), so I left it out of my last post. That's exactly why I don't think this is a paradox.

[unreality]

it's not a paradox as I said earlier because while he intuits that x will win, he logics that z will win. He's fighting his gut feeling with statistical analysis

[Guest]

well, i agree with you, unreality. the thing is that it would be a paradox, in case someone (almost) equally believes in what his intution tells him, as well as to the credibility of the statistics so far. have you ever experienced such a situation?

[Guest]

My friend says "If you're in a multiple choice test and haven't studied, but you're almost sure that an option is right, it's definitely wrong, so choose from the other ones". I don't know if that actually works, but it kind of makes sense. If you don't know the subject you're most likely wrong. This is a different situation though, because wrong multiple choice options are usually designed to seem right to those who haven't studied. But I don't know if it's possible to believe that you're right and that you're wrong at the same time. You may take some time to ponder which way you should go, but in the end you'll make a decision. And now I realize that a true/false test would be more similar to your world cup situation. So the advice would be "If you think it's true but you don't know the subject, mark false".