David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Humans make mistakes in our decision-making and probability judgments. While the heuristics used for decision-making have been explained as adaptations that are both efficient and fast, the reasons why people deal with probabilities using the reported biases have not been clear. We will see that some of these biases can be understood as heuristics developed to explain a complex world when little information is available. That is, they approximate Bayesian inferences for situations more complex than the ones in laboratory experiments and in this sense might have appeared as an adaptation to those situations. When ideas as uncertainty and limited sample sizes are included in the problem, the correct probabilities are changed to values close to the observed behavior. These ideas will be used to explain the observed weight functions, the violations of coalescing and stochastic dominance reported in the literature.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Wai-Tat Fu (2011). A Dynamic Context Model of Interactive Behavior. Cognitive Science 35 (5):874-904.
Niki Pfeifer & G. D. Kleiter (2002). Experiments on Nonmonotonic Reasoning. The Coherence of Human Probability Judgments. In H. Leitgeb & G. Schurz (eds.), Pre-Proceedings of the 1 s T Salzburg Workshop on Paradigms of Cognition.
Thomas Sturm (2012). The “Rationality Wars” in Psychology: Where They Are and Where They Could Go. Inquiry 55 (1):66-81.
Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic & Amos Tversky (eds.) (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press.
Niki Pfeifer & Gernot D. Kleiter (2005). Coherence and Nonmonotonicity in Human Reasoning. Synthese 146 (1-2):93 - 109.
David C. Funder (2000). Gone with the Wind: Individual Differences in Heuristics and Biases Undermine the Implication of Systematic Irrationality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):673-674.
Joseph L. Austerweil & Thomas L. Griffiths (2011). Seeking Confirmation Is Rational for Deterministic Hypotheses. Cognitive Science 35 (3):499-526.
Douglas T. Kenrick & Jon K. Maner (2004). One Path to Balance and Order in Social Psychology: An Evolutionary Perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):346-347.
Ralph Hertwig & Annika Wallin (2004). Out of the Theoretical Cul-de-Sac. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):342-343.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #235,035 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #147,227 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?