Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky invented a fictitious woman named Linda and gave her the below description:
“Linda is thirty-one years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations.”
People were then asked to cite which statement was more likely:
Linda is a bank teller.
Linda is a bank teller who is active in the feminist movement.
Did you choose the latter option? It’s easy to see someone like Linda being involved in feminist causes. And it’s much easier to picture her in that role than as a bank teller. Undergraduate study participants agreed. Nearly 90% said that Linda was more likely to be a feminist bank teller than a bank teller.
Except this choice completely defies the laws of probability. Since all feminist bank tellers are included within the overall base of bank tellers, the probability of Linda being a feminist bank teller must be lower than the probability of her being a bank teller.
How many times have you allowed YOUR imagination of someone else come in the way of truly discovering that person?
And then ask the more important question
How many times have you allowed YOUR impression of who you are come in the way of discovering who you truly are?