So I’m aware of the gambler’s fallacy. If an event has a set probability of happening and hasn’t happened yet, that doesn’t mean it’s *due* and now more likely to happen. Just because the coin landed on heads just now doesn’t mean it’s more likely to land on tails the next time.
So intuitively we could think just because an earthquake hasn’t happened in a while doesn’t mean it’s “overdue” and increasingly likely to happen in the future.
BUT, it’s my understanding that part of what causes earthquakes is a buildup of tension in the tectonic plates, which builds and builds until it’s finally too much to bear and there’s a sudden jerking motion as the plates snap or slip or whatever, and resettle to new positions, resulting in an earthquake. So if tension is always building up, does that mean for every day we don’t have an earthquake, the *next* day is more likely to have one?
In: 4
In the gambler’s fallacy, each event is completely independent of the next event like in roulette or flipping coins. You could flip a coin 10 times in a row and get 7 heads and 3 tails. The next coin flip is still 50/50. Each day, on a fault line more and more pressure builds up until it fails and causes an earthquake. It’s more like Black Jack than it is roulette if you were going to compare it to gambling. If you were the last person to be dealt cards on the table and you have an 8 and a 7, you’re looking for 6 or lower card. If the people in front of you get a bunch of 6s you know you’re now more likely to bust because the card that’s going to be dealt to you is dependent on what happened between the shuffle and when you’re dealt the card.
Latest Answers