DOCSLIB.ORG

Evolutionary Psychology and Human Reasoning: Testing the Domain-Specificity Hypothesis Through Wason Selection Task

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evolutionary Psychology and Human Reasoning: Testing the Domain-Specificity Hypothesis Through Wason Selection Task Evolutionary Psychology and Human Reasoning: Testing the Domain-Specificity Hypothesis through Wason Selection Task Fabrizio Ferrara ([email protected])* Amedeo Esposito ([email protected])* Barbara Pizzini ([email protected])* Olimpia Matarazzo ([email protected])* *Department of Psychology - Second University of Naples, Viale Ellittico 31, Caserta, 81100 Italy Abstract during phylogenetic development. Both these approaches, albeit based on a different conception of the human mind, The better performance in the selection task with deontic rules, compared to the descriptive version, has been share the assumption that it is better equipped for reasoning interpreted by evolutionary psychologists as the evidence that with general (e.g. Cummins 1996, 2013) or specific (e.g. human reasoning has been shaped to deal with either global or Cosmides, 1989; Cosmides & Tooby, 2013) deontic norms specific deontic norms. An alternative hypothesis is that the rather than with epistemic concepts (i.e. the concepts related two types of rules have been embedded in two different forms to knowledge and belief). of reasoning, about and from a rule, the former demanding Experimental evidence achieved mainly by means of the more complex cognitive processes. In a between-subjects study with 640 participants we manipulated the content of the selection task (Wason, 1966) is thought to support this rule (deontic vs. social contract vs. precaution vs. descriptive) claim. In the original formulation, this task consists in and the type of task (reasoning about, traditionally associated selecting the states of affairs necessary to determine the to indicative tasks, vs. reasoning from, traditionally associated truth-value of a descriptive (or indicative) rule expressed to deontic tasks). Results showed that the better performance through the conditional statement "if p then q". Four double- is independent of the content of the rule and is associated to sided cards are presented, conveying on one face the the "reasoning from" task. information of presence/absence of the antecedent (p or not- Keywords: selection task; deontic reasoning; domain-general p) and on the other face the same information about the reasoning; domain-specific reasoning; evolutionary consequent (q or not-q). The cards are shown only by one psychology. side (the visible faces are p, not-p, q, not-q) and participants have to indicate which ones need to be turned over to Introduction determine whether the rule is true or false. According to The “easiness” to reason with deontic norms (i.e. the norms propositional logic, the correct response is to select only that establish what is required, prohibited or allowed to do those cards that would entail the combination apt to make in certain circumstances) has been largely used as a piece of the rule false, i.e. p and not-q. Selecting other cards is evidence supporting the idea of the domain-specific nature insufficient or useless. of mind. This hypothesis has been strongly sustained, The percentages of correct solutions with the original among others, by evolutionary psychologists, according to formulation of the task are very low, between 4% and 30%, which the development of highly specialized cognitive regardless of the abstract/thematic content of the rule and its abilities have improved the environmental fitness and familiarity/unfamiliarity. A great improvement, between phylogenetic evolution of human species. Some scholars 65% and 80%, has been documented when conditional rules (e.g. Barrett & Kurzban, 2006; Cosmides, 1989; Cosmides express deontic norms and it is required to identify potential & Tooby, 2013) posit that such abilities are managed by violators (see for review, Beller, 2008; Cosmides & Tooby, modules, i.e. computational units that process domain- 2013; Cummins, 1996; Stenning & Lambalgen, 2008). The specific information, and claim that the human mind is enduring debate about the implications of these findings massively modular. Other scholars (e.g. Ariew, 1999; regards the legitimacy to infer specific mental structures Cummins 1996, 2013) sustain that domain-specific abilities devoted (e.g. Cosmides 1989; Cummins, 1996) or are not predetermined by modular activity, but by developed (e.g. Cheng & Holyoak, 1985) to process classes canalization, a process which biologically prepares the of rule-governed actions. From an opposed perspective, the human mind to be particular sensitive to specific supposed content-sensitiveness of human reasoning is environmental stimulations and favors the acquisition of instead ascribed to the formal differences between deontic solutions and expertise that have been particularly adaptive and epistemic reasoning (e.g. Buller, 2005; Chater & 216 Oaksford, 1996; Oaksford and Chater, 1994; Perham & (Oda, Hiraishi, & Matsumoto-Oda, 2006; Thompson at al. Oaksford, 2005; Stenning & Lambalgen, 2008). 2015). Although the domain specificity hypothesis had been On the opposite side, a large number of scholars, sharing advanced from an ontogenetic perspective by Cheng & a domain-general conception of human reasoning, have Holyoak (1985) with the pragmatic reasoning schemas advanced alternative hypotheses to account for the different theory, it has been strongly advocated by the evolutionary performance in descriptive and deontic selection tasks, perspective. Cummins (1996, 2003, 2013) postulates the grounded on the consideration that the two tasks have a existence of a specific deontic reasoning, evolutionarily dissimilar structure and rely on different inferential canalized and responsible for the management of any rule processes. that constrains social behavior. Deontic reasoning emerges According to Fodor (2000) and Buller (2005), indicative early in development and seems to be ubiquitous. However, and deontic conditionals have different logical operators some findings (e.g. Dack & Astington, 2011) question this (dyadic vs. monadic) and consequently entail different assertion. inferences. Indeed, in the deontic rule "If you want p, then On the contrary, the followers of the massive modularity you must do q", the non-compliance of not-q cases is hypothesis (e.g. Cosmides, 1989; Fiddik, Cosmides & implicitly conveyed by the mandatory requirement of action Tooby, 2000) posit that neurocognitive modules are q, given the occurrence of p. Instead, the selection of non-q specialized to reason only about specific deontic domains in indicative selection tasks, requires a more complex that particularly favored human evolution, like social falsificationist strategy grounded on the inference that "If p exchange and hazard management. According to these then q" is false when the negation of consequent implies the authors, social exchange, or reciprocation, is the foundation affirmation of antecedent. of social cooperation and is common in all cultures. From a Bayesian approach, the optimal data selection theory Reciprocation is expressed through social contracts, (Chater & Oaksford, 1996; Oaksford & Chater, 1994; conditional rules of the form "If you take benefit P, then you Perham & Oaksford, 2005) also posits that descriptive and must satisfy requirement Q". Selection tasks embedded in deontic selection tasks are solved by using different social exchange scenarios, requiring to detect violators of strategies that rely on distinct probabilistic models. In social contracts, produce very high rates (up to 80%) of descriptive tasks the most rational answer consists in selecting p and not-q cards. Nevertheless, according to selecting p and q cards because, under the assumption that social exchange theory (SET), the selection of these cards is these instances are more rare than their respective contrast not the result of formal logical inferences, but of a "look for classes not-p and not-q (rarity assumption), they convey the cheaters" algorithm, a subroutine of the social exchange bigger expected information gain to establish the truth value module, that identifies those who take the benefit (p card) of the rule. Instead, in deontic tasks participants choose the without satisfying the requirement (not-q card) as potential cards maximizing expected utility. Depending on the violators of the social contract. Empirical evidence of this perspective participants are requested to assume, the most claim is that, presenting switched social contract rules of the useful cards are p and not-q or not-p and q. Deontic tasks form "If you satisfy requirement P, then you are entitled to are less complex in mathematical terms than descriptive receive benefit Q", participants continue to select the cards ones and therefore are simpler to resolve. corresponding to potential cheaters, in this case, not-p and q Other researchers (Jackson & Griggs, 1990; Noveck & (Cosmides, 1989; Gigerenzer & Huge, 1992). Some O'Brien, 1996; Stenning & Lambalgen, 2008) focus on the empirical evidence (see for a review Cosmides & Tooby different status of the rules presented in descriptive or in 2013) documents that the ability to detect cheaters is already deontic tasks, entailing two different forms of reasoning. In present in 3-4 year old children, is cross-cultural, and descriptive tasks, it is required to settle the uncertainty of discerns between unintentional and intentional violations the rule: participants don't know whether the rule is true or (Cosmides, Barrett & Tooby, 2010), but the latter finding is false, and have to reason about it, by selecting instances at least questionable (Matarazzo & Ferrara,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1. Thinking and Reasoning. (PC Wason and Johnson-Laird, PN, Eds.)
    PUBLICATIONS Books: 1. Thinking and Reasoning. (P.C. Wason and Johnson-Laird, P.N., Eds.) Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968. 2. Psychology of Reasoning. (P.C. Wason and Johnson-Laird, P.N.) London: Batsford. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972. Italian translation: Psicologia del Ragionamento, Martello-Giunti, 1977. Spanish translation: Psicologia del Razonamiento, Editorial Debate, Madrid, 1980. 3. Language and Perception. (George A. Miller and Johnson-Laird, P.N.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976. 4. Thinking. (Johnson-Laird, P.N. and P.C. Wason, Eds.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. 5. Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983. Italian translation by Alberto Mazzocco, Il Mulino, 1988. Japanese translation, Japan UNI Agency,1989. 6. The Computer and the Mind: An Introduction to Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. London: Fontana, 1988. Second edition, 1993. Japanese translation, 1989. El ordenador y la mente. (1990) Ediciones Paidos. [Spanish translation] La Mente e il Computer. (1990) Il Mulino. [Italian translation] Korean translation, Seoul: Minsuma,1991. [Including a new preface.] L’Ordinateur et L’Esprit. (1994) Paris: Editions Odile Jacob. [French translation of second edition.] Der Computer im Kopf. (1996) München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. [German translation of second edition.] Polish translation,1998. 7. Deduction. (Johnson-Laird, P.N., and Byrne, R.M.J.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991. 8. Human and Machine Thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993. Deduzione, Induzione, Creativita. (1994) Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino. 9. Reasoning and Decision Making. (Johnson-Laird, P.N., and Shafir, E., Eds.) Oxford: Blackwell, 1994. 10. Models of Visuospatial Cognition.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasoning Versus Text Processing in the Wason Selection Task: a Nondeontic Perspective on Perspective Effects
    Memory & Cognition 2000,28 (6), 1060-1070 Reasoning versus text processing in the Wason selection task: A nondeontic perspective on perspective effects AMITALMOR University ofSouthern California, Los Angeles, California and STEVEN A. SLOMAN Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island Weargue that perspective effects in the Wason four-card selection task are a product of the linguis­ tic interpretation of the rule in the context of the problem text and not of the reasoning process un­ derlying card selection. In three experiments, participants recalled the rule they used in either a se­ lection or a plausibility rating task. The results showed that (1) participants tended to recall rules compatible with their card selection and not with the rule as stated in the problem and (2) recall was not affected by whether or not participants performed card selection. Weconclude that perspective ef­ fects in the Wason selection task do not concern how card selection is reasoned about but instead re­ flect the inferential text processing involved in the comprehension of the problem text. Together with earlier research that showed selection performance in nondeontic contexts to be indistinguishable from selection performance in deontic contexts (Almor & Sloman, 1996; Sperber, Cara, & Girotto, 1995), the present results undermine the claim that reasoning in a deontic context elicits specialized cognitive processes. A central question regarding the nature ofhuman rea­ 1966) and as a means ofstudying various factors that may soning is whether it operates solely on the basis ofgen­ help "rehabilitate" people's apparently illogical thinking eral domain-independent principles or whether reason­ (Griggs & Cox, 1982, 1983; Wason & Shapiro, 1971), the ing is domain-specific.
    [Show full text]
  • Conditional Reasoning: the Importance of Individual Differences*
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Repositorio Institucional da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela CONDITIONAL REASONING: THE IMPORTANCE OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES* Mª Dolores Valiña, Gloria Seoane, Mª José Ferraces & Montserrat Martín University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain) INTRODUCTION The study of thinking and reasoning is a topic of central interest for economists, anthropologists, logicians, pedagogues and of course for psychologists. A central problem in the experimental investigation in Psychology is to describe how people think and reason deductively and inductively. There are three fundamental theoretical approaches to deductive reasoning in the Cognitive Psychology: mental logic, mental models and pragmatic schemas (see Evans, Newstead & Byrne, 1993, for a detailed review). There are several proponents of a universal mental logic (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958) or natural logics (Braine, 1978, 1990, 1994; Braine & O´Brien, 1991; Braine & Rumain, 1983; Osherson, 1974, 1975; Rips, 1983, 1990, 1994). Other authors propose that reasoning is based on construction and evaluation of mental models (Johnson-Laird, 1983; Johnson-Laird & Byrne, 1991). A third approach asserts that reasoning is not based on general inference rules and assumes that people have domain-specific reasoning mechanisms such as pragmatic reasoning schemas inductively acquired (Cheng & Holyoak, 1985, 1989; Cheng, Holyoak, Nisbett & Oliver, 1986; Holyoak & Cheng, 1995) or innates procedures for identify potential deviations from social contracts (Cosmides 1985, 1989; Cosmides & Tooby, 1992) _______________________ * An extended version of this paper has been published in the chapter: “Conditional reasoning: The importance of individual differences”, of the book: Mental Models in Reasoning, J.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Logical Reasoning Skills from a Strategy Perspective
    Rethinking Logical Reasoning Skills from a Strategy Perspective Bradley J. Morris* Grand Valley State University and LRDC, University of Pittsburgh, USA Christian D. Schunn LRDC, University of Pittsburgh, USA Running Head: Logical Reasoning Skills _______________________________ * Correspondence to: Department of Psychology, Grand Valley State University, 2117 AuSable Hall, One Campus Drive, Allendale, MI 49401, USA. E-mail: [email protected], Fax: 1-616-331-2480. Morris & Schunn Logical Reasoning Skills 2 Rethinking Logical Reasoning Skills from a Strategy Perspective Overview The study of logical reasoning has typically proceeded as follows: Researchers (1) discover a response pattern that is either unexplained or provides evidence against an established theory, (2) create a model that explains this response pattern, then (3) expand this model to include a larger range of situations. Researchers tend to investigate a specific type of reasoning (e.g., conditional implication) using a particular variant of an experimental task (e.g., the Wason selection task). The experiments uncover a specific reasoning pattern, for example, that people tend to select options that match the terms in the premises, rather than derive valid responses (Evans, 1972). Once a reasonable explanation is provided for this, researchers typically attempt to expand it to encompass related phenomena, such as the role of ‘bias’ in other situations like weather forecasting (Evans, 1989). Eventually, this explanation may be used to account for all performance on an entire class of reasoning phenomena (e.g. deduction) regardless of task, experience, or age. We term this a unified theory. Some unified theory theorists have suggested that all logical reasoning can be characterized by a single theory, such as one that is rule-based (which involves the application of transformation rules that draw valid conclusions once fired; Rips, 1994).
    [Show full text]
  • How Emotions Affect Logical Reasoning: Evidence from Experiments with Mood-Manipulated Participants, Spider Phobics, and People with Exam Anxiety
    Emotion Science How emotions affect logical reasoning: Evidence from experiments with mood-manipulated participants, spider phobics, and people with exam anxiety Nadine Jung, Christina Wranke, Kai Hamburger and Markus Knauff Journal Name: Frontiers in Psychology ISSN: 1664-1078 Article type: Original Research Article Received on: 29 Oct 2013 Accepted on: 22 May 2014 Provisional PDF published on: 22 May 2014 www.frontiersin.org: www.frontiersin.org Citation: Jung N, Wranke C, Hamburger K and Knauff M(2014) How emotions affect logical reasoning: Evidence from experiments with mood-manipulated participants, spider phobics, and people with exam anxiety. Front. Psychol. 5:570. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00570 /Journal/Abstract.aspx?s=361& /Journal/Abstract.aspx?s=361&name=emotion%20science& name=emotion%20science& ART_DOI=10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00570 ART_DOI=10.3389 /fpsyg.2014.00570: (If clicking on the link doesn't work, try copying and pasting it into your browser.) Copyright statement: © 2014 Jung, Wranke, Hamburger and Knauff. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. This Provisional PDF corresponds to the article as it appeared upon acceptance, after rigorous
    [Show full text]
  • UC Merced Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society
    UC Merced Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society Title Rationality-Guided AGI as Cognitive Systems Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7xd1940g Journal Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 34(34) ISSN 1069-7977 Authors Abdel-Fattah, Ahmed M.H. Besold, Tarek R. Gust, Helmar et al. Publication Date 2012 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Rationality-Guided AGI as Cognitive Systems Ahmed Abdel-Fattah, Tarek R. Besold, Helmar Gust, Ulf Krumnack, Martin Schmidt, Kai-Uwe Kuhnberger¨ ({ahabdelfatta | tbesold | hgust | krumnack | martisch | kkuehnbe}@uni-osnabrueck.de) Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Osnabr¨uck, Albrechtstr. 28, 49076 Osnabr¨uck, Germany Pei Wang ([email protected]) Department of Computer and Information Sciences, College of Science & Technology, Temple University, 1805 N. Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122 USA Abstract methodologies (Baum, Hutter, & Kitzelmann, 2010). Here, The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) within cogni- we approach cognition in AGI systems by particularly pro- tive science (CogSci) necessitates further elaborations on, and moting “rationality” as one of such indispensable criteria, and modelings of, several indispensable cognitive criteria. We ap- analyze some divergent, sometimes seemingly irrational, be- proach this issue by emphasizing the close relation between ar- tificial general intelligence (AGI) and CogSci, and discussing, haviors of humans. particularly, “rationality” as one of such indispensable criteria. In this article, our goal is twofold. We first concern We give arguments evincing that normative models of human- ourselves with explicitly allocating ideas from AGI within like rationality are vital in AGI systems, where the treatment of deviations from traditional rationality models is also nec- CogSci.
    [Show full text]
  • The Modular Mind the Concept of the Modular Mind Is Related To, but Not Identical To, the Concept of the Modular Brain
    Chapter 3: Encephalization and the Emergence of Mind - 84 The Modular Mind The concept of the modular mind is related to, but not identical to, the concept of the modular brain. Mind is defined as the collective conscious and unconscious processes of a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behavior. Moreover, these mental processes are considered to be a direct manifestation of brain activity. Although it may seem reasonable to assume that a modular mind would be the direct outcome of activity in a modular brain, this is not necessarily true. Some could argue that the activity of a multitude of modular brain components could result in a non-modular mind. There is, however, a lot of empirical evidence that suggests that the mind itself is modular in nature. What is meant by the term modular mind is that instead of being a general all-purpose information processor, the mind consists of a number of specialized mechanisms designed by evolution to cope with certain recurring adaptive problems. Tooby and Cosmides (1992) have argued that the better analogy for the human mind is not that of a general all-purpose computer, but rather a Swiss army knife. Many academics have been resistant to the idea of a modular human mind despite the mass of supporting empirical evidence. Part of this resistance may arise from a basic confusion of what is exactly meant by the term modular mind. To each individual human introspecting his own mental processes the mind appears to be a seamless whole. In response to this we should mention the stroke patients that were discussed earlier in this chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Thinking and Reasoning
    Thinking and Reasoning Thinking and Reasoning ■ An introduction to the psychology of reason, judgment and decision making Ken Manktelow First published 2012 British Library Cataloguing in Publication by Psychology Press Data 27 Church Road, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2FA A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication by Psychology Press Data 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Manktelow, K. I., 1952– Thinking and reasoning : an introduction [www.psypress.com] to the psychology of reason, Psychology Press is an imprint of the Taylor & judgment and decision making / Ken Francis Group, an informa business Manktelow. p. cm. © 2012 Psychology Press Includes bibliographical references and Typeset in Century Old Style and Futura by index. Refi neCatch Ltd, Bungay, Suffolk 1. Reasoning (Psychology) Cover design by Andrew Ward 2. Thought and thinking. 3. Cognition. 4. Decision making. All rights reserved. No part of this book may I. Title. be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any BF442.M354 2012 form or by any electronic, mechanical, or 153.4'2--dc23 other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and 2011031284 recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing ISBN: 978-1-84169-740-6 (hbk) from the publishers. ISBN: 978-1-84169-741-3 (pbk) Trademark notice : Product or corporate ISBN: 978-0-203-11546-6 (ebk) names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Psychology: a Primer
    Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer Leda Cosmides & John Tooby Center for Evolutionary Psychology UC Santa Barbara http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/ Introduction The goal of research in evolutionary psychology is to discover and understand the design of the human mind. Evolutionary psychology is an approach to psychology, in which knowledge and principles from evolutionary biology are put to use in research on the structure of the human mind. It is not an area of study, like vision, reasoning, or social behavior. It is a way of thinking about psychology that can be applied to any topic within it. In this view, the mind is a set of information-processing machines that were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors. This way of thinking about the brain, mind, and behavior is changing how scientists approach old topics, and opening up new ones. This chapter is a primer on the concepts and arguments that animate it. Debauching the mind: Evolutionary psychology's past and present In the final pages of the Origin of Species, after he had presented the theory of evolution by natural selection, Darwin made a bold prediction: "In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation." Thirty years later, William James tried to do just that in his seminal book, Principles of Psychology, one of the founding works of experimental psychology (James, 1890). In Principles, James talked a lot of "instincts".
    [Show full text]
  • Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2011) 34, 57–111 doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000968 Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory Hugo Mercier Philosophy, Politics and Economics Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104 [email protected] http:// sites.google.com/site/hugomercier/ Dan Sperber Jean Nicod Institute (EHESS-ENS-CNRS), 75005 Paris, France; Department of Philosophy, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary [email protected] http:// www.dan.sperber.fr Abstract: Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing, but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist.
    [Show full text]
  • Argumentation, Rationality, and Psychology of Reasoning
    Argumentation, Rationality, and Psychology of Reasoning DAVID GODDEN Philosophy Department Old Dominion University Norfolk, Virginia 23529 USA [email protected] www.davidgodden.ca Abstract: This paper locates a Résumé: On identifie une idée common picture of argumentative commune et fondamentale de la na- rationality and identifies some im- ture de la rationalité argumentative plicit assumptions. Argumentative et une collection d'hypothèses im- rationality is contrasted with dual- plicites en elle. Ensuite on met en process theories of reasoning and contraste la rationalité argumentative rationality prevalent in the psychol- avec les théories de double proces- ogy of reasoning. I argue that argu- sus de raisonnement et de la ration- mentative rationality properly corre- alité qui prévalent dans la psycholo- sponds only with system-2 reasoning gie du raisonnement. On soutient in dual-process theories. This chal- que la rationalité argumentative cor- lenges the prescriptive force of ar- respond bien seulement avec un sys- gumentative norms, if they derive tème-2 de raisonnement dans les from their descriptive accuracy of théories de double processus. Ce our cognitive processes. As a reme- résultat remet en cause la force nor- dy, I propose an activity-based ac- mative des normes argumentatives, count of reasoning that retains the si elles proviennent du tout de leur assumptions of argumentative ra- exactitude descriptive de nos proces- tionality while recontextualizing the sus cognitifs. Comme un remède, je relationship between reasoning as a propose une explication fondée sur justificatory activity and the psycho- l'activité de raisonnement qui retient logical states and processes underly- les suppositions de la rationalité ing it.
    [Show full text]
  • Perspective Effects in Nondeontic Versions of the Wason Selection Task
    Memory & Cognition 2000, 28 (3), 396-405 Perspective effects in nondeontic versions ofthe Wason selection task ALEXANDER STALLER, STEVEN A. SLOMAN, and TALIA BEN-ZEEV Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island Perspective effects in the Wason four-card selection task occur when people choose mutually ex­ clusive sets of cards depending on the perspective they adopt when making their choice. Previous demonstrations of perspective effects have been limited to deontic contexts-that is, problem con­ texts that involve social duty, like permissions and obligations. In three experiments, we demonstrate perspective effects in nondeontic contexts, including a context much like the original one employed by Wason(1966, 1968).Wesuggest that perspective effects arise whenever the task uses a rule that can be interpreted biconditionally and different perspectives elicit different counterexamples that match the predicted choice sets. This view is consistent with domain-general theories but not with domain­ specific theories of deontic reasoning-for example, pragmatic reasoning schemas and social contract theory-that cannot explain perspective effects in nondeontic contexts. Are the procedures that people use to reason domain cedure. We propose, in agreement with existing domain­ specific or domain general? Much ofthe support for the general theories, that perspective effects in both deontic view that reasoning is domain specific comes from work and nondeontic contexts depend on the elicitation of on the Wason selection task (WST; Wason, 1966, 1968). counterexamples. A number oftheories propose that people's reasoning in In the original abstract version of the WST, partici­ this task depends on whether the task uses deontic con­ pants are presented with four cards.
    [Show full text]