So I came across this Jordan Peterson clip from some podcast where he says just the stupidest things imaginable. You don't have to watch it, I will be quoting it here.
A while back a Disney executive mentioned on video, she said "well, I have two children, five and seven, one is trans and the other is pansexual"
This is a lie, the executive in question seems to have five children who are at least in their teens. How unexpected that he would lie like this.
And I just thought mathematically right away, it's like the chance you have a trans kid is 1/3000. That is not a very high chance.
This, too, seems made up, the actual number from quick googling seems to be at least 1/200. Now here comes the good part.
And let's say the chance that you have a pansexual kid is the same, whatever pansexual means. But whatever that is, it is rarer than trans because no one ever even heard about it until 5 years ago.
Absolutely stunning display of logic and valuing facts. The actual number seems to be more than 1/100, btw.
So the joint probability that you have a trans kid and a pansexual kid is 1/9000000
This does not actually matter because of what he says next, but just so we are keeping track, I'll calculate the actual probability.
math
Of five children, the chance of at least one being trans is 1-(199/200)^5 ≈ 1/40. The same for at least one pan kid is 1-(99/100)^5 ≈ 1/20. Given the rough approximations in the probabilities and ignoring likely correlations, this is an order of magnitude calculation, and we will therefore ignore subtracting the probability that exactly one child is both trans and pan, mostly because I do not want to check my calculations (for the record I think it is about 1/5000). We get the total probability of (1-(199/200)5)*(1-(99/100)5) ≈ 1/1000
The probability is around 1/1000, three orders of magnitude more than Kermit's estimate. This is ignoring multiple factors that would make the actual probability significantly higher, most likely. Anyways, I lied before, this is the actual best part:
The odds that you are a pathological narcissist sacrificing you own children [...] is 8999999:1.
This is like saying that if you roll two dice and get two sixes, the chance that the dice are weighted to always roll sixes is 35:1. This is like saying that if you flip a coin and it lands heads, there is a 50 % chance that it actually landed tails and you are just delusional. This is like saying that if you get struck by lightning, the odds are 999999:1 that no you didn't.
The density of falsehoods and nonsense in the clip is just stunning. People unironically call this person a scientist and an intellectual!!
Americans didn't learn how to multiply fractions together in elementary school? The math here was like, grade 3 or 4 for me here.
Nah it's counting and addition in kindergarten, addition and subtraction in 1st grade, multiplication in 2nd, a black hole made of fractions from 3rd to 7th grade, pre-algebra in 8th, then in high school you have algebra, geometry, algebra 2, trigonometry, and calculus (the last of which you never get to unless you're on an accelerated program).
The system isn't standardized at all, and yet I've seen this exact pattern in a whole bunch of schools across the country.
This is correct except on the east coast at least geometry is freshman year of high school (accelerated is geometry in 8th grade and finishes 12th grade with calculus)
The Math yes. The application no.
This type of conditional probability isn't just multiplying fractions don't play dumb.
Nah in that middle part OP is just saying that the chance of having two based kids is the same as 1 minus the odds of not having those based kids, it looks more complicated than it is
I didn't say it's complicated or that I'm confused, I said this kind of application of complements is not typically done in middle school
Oh my bad I misread the context then, you're right, it's high school common core