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
Assuming that there is no other way to relieve the tectonic pressure, then yes, the longer an area goes without an earthquake, the more likely an earthquake becomes or the more severe the next earthquake is likely to be.
Latest Answers