Quiz: The Plausible Story Problem

Q: The plausible story problem is the tendency to: Tell stories instead of analyzing data Accept explanations that are narratively compelling as though coherence were evidence Believe only stories told by prestigious people Prefer fiction over nonfiction

B) Narrative coherence substituting for evidence. Reference: Section 6.1

Q: The conjunction fallacy demonstrates that: Adding detail to a story makes it less probable but more believable Complex stories are always false Simple explanations are always better Probability and narrative are always aligned

A) Additional detail increases narrative coherence (believability) while decreasing mathematical probability. Reference: Section 6.1

Q: The alternative narrative test asks you to: Find a different expert who disagrees Construct an equally plausible story using the same evidence that reaches the opposite conclusion Replace the narrative with data Wait for more evidence before accepting any narrative

B) If you can construct an equally plausible alternative, the evidence is underdetermined. Reference: Section 6.5

Q: The "explanation-prediction gap" refers to: The gap between what experts explain and what they predict The gap between old and new explanations The gap between theory and practice The gap between academic and applied research

A) Experts explain events confidently after the fact but predict them poorly before the fact. Reference: Section 6.2

Q: "Narrative survivorship" combines: Authority cascade + unfalsifiability Survivorship bias + the plausible story problem Streetlight effect + survivorship bias Publication bias + authority cascade

B) Survivorship bias provides biased evidence; the plausible story problem provides false explanation built on that evidence. Reference: Section 6.8

Q: Confabulation research is relevant because it shows: Brain-damaged patients lie deliberately The brain's narrative-generating machinery produces confident explanations regardless of actual understanding Only neurological patients confabulate Stories are always false

B) The narrative machinery operates independently of genuine causal understanding. Reference: Section 6.6

Q: "If a story is coherent and all the pieces fit together, it is probably true."

False. Coherence is a property of the narrative, not a property of reality. False stories can be just as coherent as true ones. The conjunction fallacy demonstrates that coherence actually reduces probability while increasing believability.

Q: "Criminal profiling has been shown to be significantly more accurate than chance."

False (based on available evidence). The chapter cites research showing that professional profilers were no more accurate than college students or self-described psychics in predicting offender characteristics — though they were significantly more confident.

Quiz: The Plausible Story Problem

Target: 70% or higher to proceed confidently.

Section 1: Multiple Choice (1 point each)

1. The plausible story problem is the tendency to: - A) Tell stories instead of analyzing data - B) Accept explanations that are narratively compelling as though coherence were evidence - C) Believe only stories told by prestigious people - D) Prefer fiction over nonfiction

Answer

**B)** Narrative coherence substituting for evidence. *Reference:* Section 6.1

2. The conjunction fallacy demonstrates that: - A) Adding detail to a story makes it less probable but more believable - B) Complex stories are always false - C) Simple explanations are always better - D) Probability and narrative are always aligned

Answer

**A)** Additional detail increases narrative coherence (believability) while decreasing mathematical probability. *Reference:* Section 6.1

3. The alternative narrative test asks you to: - A) Find a different expert who disagrees - B) Construct an equally plausible story using the same evidence that reaches the opposite conclusion - C) Replace the narrative with data - D) Wait for more evidence before accepting any narrative

Answer

**B)** If you can construct an equally plausible alternative, the evidence is underdetermined. *Reference:* Section 6.5

4. The "explanation-prediction gap" refers to: - A) The gap between what experts explain and what they predict - B) The gap between old and new explanations - C) The gap between theory and practice - D) The gap between academic and applied research

Answer

**A)** Experts explain events confidently after the fact but predict them poorly before the fact. *Reference:* Section 6.2

5. "Narrative survivorship" combines: - A) Authority cascade + unfalsifiability - B) Survivorship bias + the plausible story problem - C) Streetlight effect + survivorship bias - D) Publication bias + authority cascade

Answer

**B)** Survivorship bias provides biased evidence; the plausible story problem provides false explanation built on that evidence. *Reference:* Section 6.8

6. Confabulation research is relevant because it shows: - A) Brain-damaged patients lie deliberately - B) The brain's narrative-generating machinery produces confident explanations regardless of actual understanding - C) Only neurological patients confabulate - D) Stories are always false

Answer

**B)** The narrative machinery operates independently of genuine causal understanding. *Reference:* Section 6.6

Section 2: True/False with Justification (1 point each)

7. "If a story is coherent and all the pieces fit together, it is probably true."

Answer

**False.** Coherence is a property of the narrative, not a property of reality. False stories can be just as coherent as true ones. The conjunction fallacy demonstrates that coherence actually *reduces* probability while increasing believability.

8. "Evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience because it produces just-so stories."

Answer

**False.** The chapter explicitly distinguishes between evolutionary theory (well-supported) and specific post-hoc evolutionary explanations (often untested just-so stories). Some evolutionary psychological claims have been tested and confirmed. The problem is with untested narrative explanations, not with the field as a whole.

9. "Criminal profiling has been shown to be significantly more accurate than chance."

Answer

**False (based on available evidence).** The chapter cites research showing that professional profilers were no more accurate than college students or self-described psychics in predicting offender characteristics — though they were significantly more confident.

Section 3: Short Answer (2 points each)

10. Explain why Tetlock found that the best storytellers were the worst predictors. What does this tell us about narrative skill vs. predictive accuracy?

Sample Answer

Tetlock's "hedgehogs" — experts with strong, confident narratives — were the worst predictors because their narrative commitment created confirmation bias: they interpreted all evidence through their existing story rather than updating. The "foxes" — eclectic, humble, willing to consider multiple perspectives — were better predictors because they held their narratives loosely. This demonstrates that narrative skill (constructing compelling stories) and predictive accuracy (anticipating what will happen) are different capacities that can be inversely correlated. *Rubric:* Hedgehog/fox distinction, explanation of why strong narratives hinder prediction, implication for the relationship between explanation and understanding.

Section 4: Applied Scenario (3 points)

11. After a major product launch fails, a company's board hires a consulting firm to explain what went wrong. The consultants produce a 50-page report identifying five key factors that caused the failure: poor market timing, inadequate testing, weak leadership, insufficient marketing budget, and cultural resistance to the product. The board accepts the report and implements changes targeting all five factors.

Using the chapter's framework, evaluate the consulting firm's analysis. What questions should the board ask?

Sample Answer

The board should ask: **(1) Alternative narrative test:** Could these same five factors explain a *success* story? (Many successful launches had similar timing, testing, leadership, budgets, and cultural resistance.) **(2) Prediction test:** Before the launch, did anyone identify these five factors as risks? If not, the analysis may be post-hoc. **(3) Underdetermination:** Are there other combinations of five factors that could equally explain the failure? **(4) Hindsight bias:** Would the consultants have identified the same factors if the launch had succeeded? **(5) Denominator:** How many other launches had these five factors and succeeded? The five-factor explanation is a plausible story. It may be correct. But the board should hold it with calibrated confidence, not as established truth, and should demand prospective predictions ("if we fix these five factors, what specifically do you predict will happen?") rather than accepting retrospective explanation as sufficient.

Scoring & Next Steps

Score	Assessment	Recommended Action
< 50%	Needs review	Re-read 6.1–6.2 and the alternative narrative test (6.5)
50–70%	Partial	Review the just-so story section (6.3) and the interaction map (6.8)
70–85%	Solid	Ready to proceed
> 85%	Strong	Proceed to Chapter 7