Cog wk 8. study :) Flashcards
Distinguish between the four different theoretical approaches in understanding the errors that people make in reasoning
(applied to both syllogisms and propositional reasoning)
- Heuristics (identifying simplifying strategies): Atmosphere & Matching
- Interpretation of terms (do pp understand what they’re being asked to do)
- Process Models (processes in brain)
- Framing and experience (similar to ecological rationality)
mental model for syllogisms
number of models possible means less accurate and slower. Tiring. stop at conclusion instead of making more models
atmosphere hueristic (for syllogisms)
people match the mood of the premises to the mood of the conclusion
the mood/atmosphere has two forms: quality (Affermative, Negative) and quantity (universal, particular)
these are placed in a matrix.
Universal + Affermative = All
Univeral + negative = None
particular + affermative = some
particular + negative = some not
45 no valid conclusin syllogisms. p.p matched the mood.
Define propositional reasoning, syllogistic reasoning
Syllogistic: Quantifiers: ALL, SOME, NONE, SOME NOT
Propositional: Conditionals: IF, AND, NOT, OR
framing and experience effect on syllogisms
people will accept an invalid claim if it’s beleiveable over a valid claim that is not beleivable
Explain the Wason selection task and factors that improve performance
Four cards following the: If p then q format
Performance improves with deontic reasoning (expl)
Improvements subject to framing and utility
the different types of conclusions associated with propositional reasoning
If p (antecedent) then q (consequent)
Modus Ponens = given p so conclude q (valid)
Modus Tollens = given no q so conclude no p (valid)
Affirmation of the consequent = Given q so conclude p (invalid)
Denial of the antecedent = given no p so conclude no q (invalid)
matching heuristic for propositional reasoning
(wason selection task)
they turn over the 2 cards that are mentioned in the question
confirmation bias for propsitional reasoning
people try to find cases where the rule is correct, when really the yshould find cases on where it is incorrect. how to break it.
comprehension in propositional reasoning
Experimenter said: if there is a D on one side…
p.p understand: if there is a D on top (So choose D)
E said: …then there is a 3 on the other side,
p.p understood: .then there is a 3 on the other side, and vice-versa
mental models in propositions
create model consistant with prepositon. work on this basis, see if violated.
not generating enough models
Framing + experience. what makes Wason selection task easier
frame as a social problem. e.g. drinking beer.
Deontic Reasoning. reasoning about what we’re alowed to do in the world.
= we have an evlolved cheater detection mechanism
- relevance/expected utility
