A

Without treatment, an unusual disease is expected to kill 600 people. Treatment 1 is expected to save 200 of them. Treatment 2 offers a 1/3 probability of saving all 600 and a 2/3 probability of saving none. Please indicate your choice between ordering Treatment 1 or Treatment 2 with the appropriate number (only) as the body of your reply.

B

Without treatment, an unusual disease is expected to kill 600 people. Given Treatment 1, 400 of them are expected to die. Treatment 2 offers a 1/3 probability that nobody would die and a 2/3 probability that all 600 would die. Please indicate your choice between ordering Treatment 1 or Treatment 2 with the appropriate number (only) as the body of your reply.

If you read carefully you can reword the entire experiment in one sentence.

Treatment is expected to save about one in three.There are no superior choices. ( Tartuffe will naturally disagree )

So we are looking at more of an IQ test than anything else.

More graphically we could imitate and illustrate by saying that every year one in ten drivers that uses a cell phone while driving causes an accident or you could say that nine out of ten....don't.

The outcomes seem to me of equivalent numerical value but not equal. That is, in Option one 200 people are saved, period. 400 die. We know the outcome.

In Option 2 we roll the dice and have a one in three chance of saving all 600 people, but a two in three chance of all 600 dying.

Option 2 was too risky for me; I'd rather be assured of saving 200 than most likely save none.

Option A and Option B are EXACTLY the same - only worded differently. That's the whole of the experiment. The same problem worded differently gets perfectly inverse results - both in the original experiment and in Tartuffe's frayxperiment.

Treatment 1 and Treatment 2 are different. Treatment 1 saves a guaranteed 200 and kills a guaranteed 400, and Treatment 2 is all or nothing - 600 live or 600 die.

I see it as more of a language issue than one of logic. It is an example of how framing a question in a certain manner can preemptively affect one's response. This is especially true when the issue at hand involves making a decision when there is inadequate empirical data available to make a logical choice of the superior alternative.

BTW: That's why I chose the unmentioned option 3, before deciding that it would be more polite to simply delete my reply. Perhaps that's also why I choose to remain politically independent, rather than throwing my lot in with either of our two major political parties.

Good for you,jo,for realizing this when the question was first posted.

You were the first one to do so. I was surprised at some of those who didn't see the equivalent factors and reciprocal values between the two .It was so wrong and a bit silly of tartuffe to call you wrong and also to immaturely call you a name ,when in fact you were right.

And so it goes....

Have a nice day. I still have one or two more days of house painting before my carpets get installed so can't spend much time in here.

And so many great topics to choose from that I'd like to post on. The Russia/Clinton meetings on whether or not to sanction Iran. Russia currently says 'no' to that. Clinton concedes (though ,I am not sure this is wise). But, this is an relationship of great diplomatic import that deserves very close scrutiny and continuing evaluation. And the ongoing fear amid the citizenry in Chicago and the violence escalating in the streets of there, among the seemingly rabid, youth there, are two stories I'd like to dig into a bit, if I had more time.

But, for now...it's flat white paint,coffee and that jelly donut Skeptical got me going for last night.(and music playing in the background , as I work.)

Have an enjoyable fray day!

~LAM

you will see that the entire premise pivots on a one in three survival expectation. Every statement of outcome can be equivocated to that ration.

!!!!!