Reference no: EM134026879

Question

We discussed in class how certain types of flawed thinking compromise our ability to think clearly about child development. We focused specifically on follow back versus follow forward logic. We illustrated this with a thought experiment involving meercats and by discussing the common myth that vaccines can cause autism. This error relates also to the problem of base rates for risk and the possibility of multifinality.

Define the problem of follow-back versus follow forward logic to reach conclusion regarding risk. Then, using your common knowledge make another example of an actual problematic outcome that might be misunderstood by using follow-back rather than follow forward logic. You do not need to know the specifics of your example rigorously but your logic underlying the example must be exactly right. For example, in my example of autism and vaccines, it was not necessary for me to know vaccines or autism precisely to be able use this as an illustration of how incorrect it would be to conclude that vaccines cause autism based on follow back comparisons. Your example:

Must it clear to me that you understand the concept and error.

Must be clear enough that a person who has never heard of this error would understand the concept after hearing your description and example.