Gambler’s Fallacy and Historian Fallacy

Gambler’s Fallacy And Historian Fallacy

The gamblers fallacy sometimes referred to as the maturity of chance fallacy, is the wrong belief that an event takes place more times than during normal times and then it will take place less often in the future (Cohen, 2004). Alternatively, it is the wrong belief that if it happens less often than the normal times, then it is going to happen more often in the future. This concept of the fallacy is based on the balance of nature. This belief, although it appeals to the mind, is false. This is more so in the cases where the event being observed is random. Although the fallacy can be applied in many practical life-situations, it is mostly associated with a gambling game of chance where repetitive luck and mistakes are common among the players (Cohen, 2004).

Often, individuals commit gamblers’ fallacy when they assume that an exit from what happens in the long term or on average will be compensated in the short run. Therefore the fallacy takes the form below

• Event x has occurred

• X breaks from the expected to occur averagely in the longer run

• Therefore X will soon end

The gambler’s fallacy can take place in various ways. For example, it can be committed when the probabilities of an event taken place are independent. A good example in this scenario would be the toss of a coin. The event does not affect the next, tossing of a coin, therefore for each toss there is a 50% probability that it will land on the head and a 50% chance that it will land on the tails. If a person tosses the coin 5 times and gets the tail each time the person would be committing the gamblers fallacy if he concluded that the next toss will be a head. The bearings of the previous tosses have no influence whatsoever on the next toss (Cohen, 2004).

 The historian fallacy is categorized as an informal fallacy and is committed when an individual assumes that the past decision makers analyzed events from a similar perspective and also using similar information as the current decision makers. David Fischer in 1970 outlined this fallacy by suggesting that it was retrogressive to the psychologist’s fallacy (Popkin & Stroll, 1993). Although the philosopher did not say that the historians should avoid carrying out retrospective analysis, he reminded them that their subjects were unable to see the future (Popkin & Stroll, 1993).