Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment
Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment is a journal article by Amos Tversky, Daniel Kahneman (1983), published in Psychological Review. IX Coach's practice library cites it in 3 practices across 2 concepts; each one is listed below, so you can see exactly where this journal article is put to use.
Where to find it
Practices on IX Coach that cite Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning
- Interrogate whether similarity is doing the work
When assessing probability or quality, ask whether you’re really judging similarity to a prototype.
Attribute Substitution: When Your Brain Answers a Different Question
- Test each component probability separately
Before judging a joint claim, estimate each element on its own, then check whether the conjunction is lower.
The Conjunction Fallacy — When "More Details" Feels More Likely
- Explicitly distinguish coherence from probability
A story can be internally consistent and still be rare — learn to separate "makes sense" from "likely."
How this page was checked
- The citation was matched to its Crossref record, and the title, authors and year above are taken from that record — not written by us.
Practice this with IX Coach