Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The base rate fallacy, also called base rate neglect [2] or base rate bias, is a type of fallacy in which people tend to ignore the base rate (e.g., general prevalence) in favor of the individuating information (i.e., information pertaining only to a specific case). [3]
The following are forms of extension neglect: Base rate fallacy or base rate neglect, the tendency to ignore general information and focus on information only pertaining to the specific case, even when the general information is more important. [47]
For example, if the control group, using no treatment at all, had their own base rate of 1/20 recoveries within 1 day and a treatment had a 1/100 base rate of recovery within 1 day, we see that the treatment actively decreases the recovery. The base rate is an important concept in statistical inference, particularly in Bayesian statistics. [2]
Persons with disabilities are easy targets for predators as they may not have the resources or abilities to escape an abusive situation or communicate about the occurrences. Hard of hearing persons are placed at twice the risk for neglect and emotional abuse in comparison to other disabilities and nearly four times in regards to physical abuse. [3]
Base rates may be neglected more often when the information presented is not causal. [17] Base rates are used less if there is relevant individuating information. [18] Groups have been found to neglect base rate more than individuals do. [19] Use of base rates differs based on context. [20]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
"In the United States, certified nursing assistants typically work in a nursing home or hospital and perform everyday living tasks for the elderly, chronically sick, or rehabilitation patients who cannot care for themselves." [11] Many community colleges offer CNA training in one semester. Other educational programs offer accelerated programs.
In another example of near-total neglect of probability, Rottenstreich and Hsee (2001) found that the typical subject was willing to pay $10 to avoid a 99% chance of a painful electric shock, and $7 to avoid a 1% chance of the same shock. They suggest that probability is more likely to be neglected when the outcomes are emotion-arousing.