The subject was simply asked if they thought others would agree to wear the sandwich board. The experimenter gave the subject no information on the traits or attributes of these "others". Thus, from a deductive angle, if I were a subject, I would only be left to assume that these "others" were people involved in the experiment that were very similar to myself. With this assumption, if I, as a hypothetical subject, were to be asked the by the experimenter what I thought the "others" would do, I would answer that the others would be most likely to make the exact same decision as myself.

The greatest problem with this experiment is that the subject was simply asked, in a black and white fashion, how they thought another subject would respond. This question does not challenge our intuition, as it has only two distinct answers, neither of which can be answered with any confidence. A much better question for the experimenter to ask would be, "What percentage of other subjects do you [the subject] believe will wear the board?"

If we were to then answer this question as logically as possible, we would have to estimate the chance that people we don't know anything about would respond to a question they have most likely never heard before. With the information given, we do not have near enough information to answer the question logically, and are forced to use our intuition. It is ridiculous to expect our intuition to be accurate under such pretenses, and the true flaw in a subject would not be if they predicted the "others" to be similar to themselves, but if the subject had any confidence in their prediction.

From this angle, I think that the subjects response had more to do with their assumptions about the "others" than their own intuition. The experiment cannot be extended to show that people innately expect others to do the same as them, because the nature of the experiment implies that the "others" ARE the same as them. I think that the statistics are deceptive, and that while the simplicity of an psychological experiment is very important, this case is far too simple to be meaningfully interpreted.

I am not in any way trying to disprove the conclusions of the experiment, which are completely logical and coherent. In contrast, I am simply saying that the results of the experiment are not sufficient to justify such conclusions.

Perhaps this only says that people will believe what they feel is in their own interest. Isn't it interesting that social psychologists interpret it to mean that we all need social psychologists.

The article suggests that people know their own behavior and from that make judgments about how others would behave. Far more plausible is that people have models as to what constitute "normal" behavior -- what they think other people would do -- and conform to it. That is, of course the subjects thought that most people would behave the way they themselves did: they behaved that way because they thought other people would behave that way; of course the subjects thought that people who didn't behave that way were characterologically more extreme; those others were people who were failing to tell what was normal.

This is symptom of the practical fact that psychologists often find it difficult to isolate particular processes as, necessarily, they're all working at once in our minds.

* The false consensus bias exists
* A perfect 50/50 split won't happen.
* The false consensus bias may be represented by a value, which is the percentage of people who will think others will agree with them.

For the following calculations, the bias value is 65% (it's close enough to the "real" figures above):

* With a 100/0 split, 65% correctly predict other's actions.
* With a 80/0 split, 59% correctly predict other's actions.
* With a 60/0 split, 53% correctly predict other's actions.

If false consensus bias is operating, it seems to work better than chance. If I increase the bias value to 100% to see what happens at the extreme:

* With a 100/0 split, 100% correctly predict other's actions.
* With a 80/0 split, 80% correctly predict other's actions.
* With a 60/0 split, 60% correctly predict other's actions.

Increasing the bias seems to increase accuracy. The false consensus bias doesn't seem to explain 'why we all stink as intuitive psychologists' because we make better predictions when we just going along with it.

Mar e.t., “And intuition is not something you can develop. You either have it or you don't. It is kind of like animal nature. The question is not can you increase your ability to be intuitive, it is can you increase your ability
to use the intuition that you were given. To interpret what your intuition is saying. Intuition is a gift if you have it.” As I have gotten older I have learned what that “gut” feeling feels like & what to do with it. I have improved my ablity with exprience. One of the problems with intuition is listening. It’s hard to stand firm on a choice with no substantial facts to back your descion other than a nagging feeling. But I have learned to listen because I have regretted not following my “gut”.
I believe that we all have “it”. The vast majority of society has no insight to who they really are, much less other people. They wander thru thier lives witout ever giving any real thought as to who they are & why they are who they are. Much less anybody else. It’s a very self absorbed world. Without the insight of one’s own self, there is no way for any intuition to be felt. Intuition is, just that, a feeling. To think conscienecly or unconsciencly, that because one does not make the same descion as ourselves, that someone is not “NORMAL” is selfish.
Maybe I can see it different because I am one of those that has never felt “normal”, but very different. When it comes to people, what is normal? Is there such a thing? My “gut” tells me there is no such thing!

I find this topic interesting & would like to share another view point on the subject but I fear that I am starting to ramble. So I will quit. But my thought is this; when a person is entirely off base, just plain wrong, about thier gut feeling? Although they insist there is truth to thier convictions? But rather the reasoning is based on one’s own past behavior and choices & not on any feeling? I’m not sure that I expressed this correctly or clearly for that matter.

Hurst08, glad you like it. Perhaps I will do something on reliability and validity. Although, to be honest, these topics can be a bit dry compared to exciting experiments. It's vital stuff though.