Probabilities might be more intuitive, statistics are intuitive only for the most straight forward topics. That's why it's so easy to present entirely correct but very misleading statistics.

I hate that I have to talk to so many people about Russian Roulette just with more chambers. But it’s the only analogy that hits.

XCOM probabilities are lies, just like Fire Emblem. Pretty much 0% of games that show you a "percent-to-hit" chance ever give an accurate number.

1 tile in front of alient

96% chance of hit

miss. twice.

question sanity.

Maybe people would have a better understanding of percentages if 20-sided dice were used more. "This has a 95% chance to succeed" -> roll a d20, anything but 1 is a success

Meanwhile 6-sided dice don't map to nice numbers, and having two dice makes the maths even harder to intuit

And yet they struggle with the abstract concept. They'll wonder why the candidate with a projected 20% chance of winning won. They won't know what to do with the information of a 70% chance of rain tomorrow. "Either it will rain or it won't, which is it!" Perhaps it's the frequentist approach that comes more natural than the Bayesian approach, who knows.

This isn't my original thought, by the way. Someone wrote more about it here: https://towardsdatascience.com/humans-are-bad-at-probability...

One of the first managers I had who studied management theory commented once that if estimates were accurate, we’d get them done earlier than expected as often as we got them done later than expected, which is not true and thus we are doing something wrong.

A probability that isn't computed (or reasonably computable) is just a personal feeling. Your 40% or 70% aren't probabilities if you didn't compute the probability of at least the key events involved to arrive at the number. People say a number as their confidence to meet the deadline on a scale from 0-100.