Video Analysis The video has fruitful contexts for observing fallacious reasoning, biases that impact how evidence is being collected or interpreted, and attempts at persuasive maneuvers. Based on you

Video Analysis The video has fruitful contexts for observing fallacious reasoning, biases that impact how evidence is being collected or interpreted, and attempts at persuasive maneuvers. Based on you
FA LLA CIE S I EPISTEMIC VIC ES 101 Cla rif y s o m e c o nce p ts f r o m M ond ay . O ve rv ie w : F alla cy F am ili e s. L e arn t o id en tif y f a lla cie s o f r e le va n ce . O BJE C TIV ES : Th e S T d efin es f a lla c io us a rg u m en ts a s t h o se t h at ” s e em t o b e v a lid b u t a re n ot s o .” H am blin d oes N O T h im se lf c la im t h is d efin it io n o f f a lla c io us arg u m en ts . 19 70 s c rit iq u e b y H am blin : h e n am es t h e c o m mon t e ac h in g o f fa lla c ie s a t h is t im e t h e ‘S ta n d ard T re atm en t’. D on’t u se t h is d efin it io n! R EV IS IT IN G T H E ‘S TA ND A RD T R EA TM EN T’ It ‘ s p sy c h olo gic al; it t u rn s o n w heth er a n in d iv id ual h ap pen s t o b e m is le d b y a n a rg u m en t. W il lia m S pald in g p o in ts o ut d ec ep tio n is n ot esse n tia l t o t h e d efin it io n o f f a lla c y: “T h e n am e is s o m etim es … u se d t o d ec eiv e . B ut t h e in te n tio n is a p o in t o f s e c o nd ary im po rta n ce in t h e t h eo ry o f f a lla c ie s … ” W hat w ould c o un t a s s o m eth in g b ein g u n qu alif ie d ly ‘d ec ep tiv e ‘ ? N oth in g is b ette r t h an H eave n ; B ut a p en ny is b ette r t h an n oth in g. Th ere fo re , a p en ny is b ette r t h an h eave n . Th e n otio n o f v a lid it y is a p plic ab le t o d ed uctiv e a rg u m en ts o nly . W hat th en d o w e d o w it h in d uctiv e , p ro bab il is tic & in fo rm al a rg u m en ts ? T h ere a re s o m e p ro ble m s w it h t h is d efin it io n… 1 . a . 2 . a . 3 . Common argument patt erns that make arguments appear to be stronger than they a re; psychologically intu itive & thus persuasive. Herman & Oswald arti cle wants to show how this happens. Proposing a system f or further study. How do fallacious ar guments do this? P R O V IS IO NA L D EF IN IT IO N Th e P rin cip le o f R ele va n ce: ‘H um an c o gn it io n t e n d s t o b e g eare d t o t h e m axim iz a tio n o f r e le va n ce’ ( W il s o n & S perb er) Relia b il it y (E p is te m ic S tr e n gth ) P ro cessib il it y (A ccessib il it y o f C rit ic al C onte xt) S tr e n gth en in g fa lla c y r e : W eake n in g re fu ta tio ns r e : A ” s u ccessfu l f a lla c y” is o ne t h at c o nvin ces p eo ple o f it s t r u th . hid e/d ow npla y c o ntr a d ic to ry e vid en ce fo re g ro un d s u p po rt fo r f a lla c y FA LLA CY FA M IL IE S Fo rm al F a lla c y: a d efe c t in t h e fo rm al s tr u ctu re o f a n a rg u m en t Fa lla c ie s o f R ele va n ce: th e w ro ng kin d of e vid en ce Fa lla c ie s o f S uffic ie n cy: th e w ro ng a m ou n t o f e vid en ce Fa lla c ie s o f P re su m ptio n : c o nfu sio n a b o ut w hat t h e giv e n e vid en ce a ctu ally s u pports F a lla c ie s o f A m big u it y : c o nfu sio n a b o ut w hat t h e giv e n e vid en ce a ctu ally m ea n s In fo rm al F a lla c y: a d efe c t in t h e ev id en tia l c o n te n t o f a n a rg u m en t, e .g . (A.K.A. Fallacies of Evidence) Key Feature: reasoning that inclu des premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion; yet, the premises seem to be r elevant intuitively or psychologically, so t hat the conclusion seems to follow from the premises. To identify: we must be able to d istinguish between genuine evidence and various unrelated forms of appeal. F alla cies o f R ele va n ce What does it mean for information to be ‘logically relevant’ to the c onclusion? It’s not top ical relevance (same subject matter) but p robative relevance: p robative means having the quality of tending to prove or d emonstrate something. Walton: “A i s probatively relevant to B if & only if A is a premise t hat gives s ome evidence or reason to accept B as true.” O ne quick me thod: ask, if the premise(s) in question were false, w ould that i mply the conclusion is false also? H ow t o d efin e ‘R ele va n ce ‘? ?? Key Feature: reasoning in which t he evidence is logically relevant, b ut there’s not enough of it to support the conclusio n with strong probability –> the premises are not sufficient to support the conclusion reliably F alla cies o f W eak I n d uctio n “Devon’s an d Devyn’s phones are both bus y. They’re c learly tal king to each other. This tota lly proves my s uspicion– they’re having an affair.” = some rele vant evidence, but clearly ve ry weak ambiguous language ( words, concepts, etc. w/ two or more m eanings); or v ague language ( words, concepts, etc. w/ uncl ear meaning). K ey Feature : t he source of fallacy lies in the comple xity of n atural lan guage; t he apparen t strength of the conclusion r elies on a confusion stemming from eith er… ” Noisy chil dren are a real headache. Two aspirin will make a h eadache go away. Therefore, two aspirin will make noisy c hildren go away.” F alla cies o f A m big uit y (A.K.A. Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption) Key Feature: always involves a fa lse or unjustified assumption; the reaso ning relies on an implicit premise whose truth is uncert ain or implausible To Identify: seek the unstated as sumptions! read between the lines–what is so meone asking you to go along with that hasn’t really be en established? F alla cies o f P re su m ptio n FA LLA CIE S O F RELE V ANC E Bis h op W ilb erfo rce v s. T .H . H uxle y, 18 60 d ebate o n e volu tio n a t O xfo rd “Y ou b eli e ve i n e volu tio n? Y ou c a n’t p ossib ly b eli e ve th at a ll o f t h is i s a r e su lt o f r a ndom c h ance .” W ilb erfo rce t a unts , “ is i t t h ro ugh y our g ra ndfa th er o r your g ra ndm oth er t h at y ou c la im d esce nt f r o m a m onkey?” = arguing against a w eaker (usually oversimplified) version of another po sition. S tra w M an refutes an argument b y distorting it (disengaging) this disregards the p rinciple of charity A: “Strict emissions policies will put a strain on both small and large businesses.” B: “So we should just keep pretending climate change doesn’t exist and let corporations run wild?” Red H erri ng = an argument that mi sleads or distracts from the real issue; ignoring the opponent’s argument and changes the subject, diverting the discussion in a d ifferent direction. e.g. “Why are you pul ling me over for speeding? Shouldn’t y ou be out catching the real criminals? Someo ne could be robbing a bank as we speak!” “Between the Earth a nd Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, and the teapot is too sm all to be revealed even by our most powerful telesc opes. Since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it!” wrongly shifts the bu rden of proof “now YOU have to disp rove ME” normally the argument must have supporting evidence/reasons to b elieve its conclusion; here, the audience is required instead to produce arguments against it Sagan: ‘Absence of ev idence is not evidence of absence.’ = claims that somethi ng is true because it has not been proved false, or fals e because it has not been proved true A ppeal t o I g nora n ce R.I.P. Challenger (Died January 28, 198 6) (73 seconds after lif toff) Engineers: “we do not have enoug h data to ensure a safe launch during these e specially cold temperatures.” NASA: “unless you can uneq uivocally prove that the cold will produce catastro phic failure, we’re going ahead with the launch.” –> the lack of evide nce ensuring a failure was taken as evidence that it was safe to launch. PER SO NA L A TTA CKS A: ” Y ou’r e a r a cis t M AGA-h at w eare r s o y our arg um ent i s i n vali d .” B : ” Y ou’r e a b ra in w ash ed li b ta rd s o y our arg um ent w as o ver b efo re i t b egan.” Ad H om in em – D ir e ct ad hominem = to/toward the man appeals to a person’s character, motive, or other attribute as a reason to dismiss or accept an argument . ‘if you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer’––the person being attacked now ha s to defend their character, not their ideas. sometimes evidence ab out character is relevant to the argument at hand (e.g. one that d epends on the credibility of a witness). 1. Ad hominem does NO T mean insult. Ad hominem – “You’re stupid; therefore, you’re wrong.” Not ad hominem – “You’re wrong; therefore, you’re stupid.” 2. Ad hominem does NO T mean any argument that offers facts about someone’s behavior or says something negative about someon e’s character. C au tio n R e: A d H om in em ! Relevant or no? A: ” E arth lo oks li k e E den a gain st t h ese v ast d epth s o f s p ace . M aybe P ope F ra ncis w as rig ht–t h ere i s a G od, a fte r a ll.” B : ” O f c o urse P ope F ra ncis s a ys t h ere i s a G od–o th erw is e , h e’d b e o ut o f a j o b.” e.g. political affili ation, educational background, place of birth, religion, i ncome, etc. rule of thumb: if you ’re going to bring someone’s circumstances into it , the burden of proof is on you to show that it is relev ant to the argument and how. = appeals to a person ’s circumstances as a reason to dismiss or accept an argument, e sp. to say that the person is biased or predisposed toward a particular position. A d H om in em – C ir c u m sta n tia l “Y ou c a n’t g o o ut w it h y our fr ie nds t o nig ht.” ” B ut w hy? W hen y ou w ere m y age, y ou s ta yed o ut la te a ll t h e t im e!” pointing to the disc repancy between another person’s claim and a ctions as a basis for discrediting the oth er person’s claim turning the argument back to the arguer: “What about…?”; “You’re th e one who…”; etc. tu quoque = “you too”; takes an arguer’s inconsistency or hypocrisy as a re ason to dismiss an argument A d H om in em – T u Q uo q ue = when an argument is made ad hominem to discredit a person before they ha ve the chance to make their own argument e.g. “before you read that book by Professor X, you should know that he f ailed 3 classes in college…” often in the form, “A nyone who believes Y is a…” e.g. “only a racist w ould argue against affirmative action.” A d H om in em – P ois o nin g t h e W ell accepting or dismissi ng an argument based on where it comes from, a.k.a. ‘damning the origin’: send the argument to Hell along with the a rguer when you dislike some one or something, you might want to reject their views im mediately, regardless of the actual merit of the argument e.g. “Tinkering with genes is fascist talk. That’s what Hitler tried to do.” e.g. ‘A broken clock is right twice a day.’ G en etic F alla cy If you’re c omparing someone/something t o Hitler o r to Nazi Germany, your a rgument is probably not good… J UST SAY NO to Nazi comparisons!! R ed uctio a d H it le ru m APPEA LS T O E M O TIO N [S entim ens] Person A uses psychological methods known to stir strong emotions: the desire to belong to an admired group, pity, fear, e tc.. Person B is expected to accept the conclusion based sol ely on the emotional appeal. GENERAL FORM: 1 . 2 . Lo ok a t a ll t h ese v id eos o f c u te b aby c o w s a nd p ig s. I t i s w ro ng f o r hum ans t o e at i n noce nt a nim als li k e t h is . v s. W e s h ould n ot e at a nim als i f t h ey h ave t o s u ffe r f o r o ur b enefit . M odern f a rm in g p ra ctic e s i m pose t r e m endous s u ffe rin g o n a nim als li k e c o w s a nd p ig s. T here fo re , w e s h ould n ot e at c o w s a nd p ig s. manipulating human ne ed to belong, desire for solidarity, etc., ad populum appeals to popular attitudes instead of presenting relevant evidence, e.g. many political s peeches bandwagon: a large nu mber of people accept a claim, so you should too ad populum = appeal to the peopl e A d P op ulu m trying to persuade by provoking sympathy instead of presenting relevant e vidence. e.g. “he has such a b right future ahead of him, and he just made this one mistake. your Honor, you should consider a sho rt sentence for Turner, so as not to ruin his life. ” appeals to emotions o f pity/guilt/etc. as a reason to accept or dismiss an argument. A ppeal t o P it y We n eed t o s to p a ll t h ese i lle gal a li e ns co m in g i n c a ra vans; o th erw is e , w e’r e g oin g t o lo se o ur j o bs! introduces irrelevant material into the argument appeals to a threat o f harmful consequences (physical, psychological, financ ial, etc.) as a reason to accept or dismiss an argument ad baculum = appeal t o the stick A ppeal t o F e ar o r F o rc e appeal is to the audi ence’s desire for gradualism; an audience is most vulner able to it when they are trying to be reasonable “Let’s be reasonable about this…” a desire for graduali sm and moderation is also a desire A rg um en tu m a d M od um
Video Analysis The video has fruitful contexts for observing fallacious reasoning, biases that impact how evidence is being collected or interpreted, and attempts at persuasive maneuvers. Based on you
FA LLA CIE S I I EPISTEMIC VIC ES 101 Und ers ta n d k e y f e atu re s o f f a lla cie s o f am big uit y & p re su m ptio n. D esc rib e w hat’s g oin g ‘w ro ng ‘ in v a rio us exa m ple s o f t h ese f a lla cie s, e sp . h ow t h ey ‘r e fo re g ro un d in g /b ackg ro un d in g in fo rm atio n. O BJE C TIV ES : Relia b il it y (E p is te m ic S tr e n gth ) P ro cessib il it y (A ccessib il it y o f C rit ic al C onte xt) S tr e n gth en in g fa lla c y r e : W eake n in g re fu ta tio ns r e : A ” s u ccessfu l f a lla c y” is o ne t h at c o nvin ces p eo ple o f it s t r u th . hid e/d ow npla y c o ntr a d ic to ry e vid en ce fo re g ro un d s u p po rt fo r f a lla c y Key Feature: reasoning in which t he evidence is logically relevant, but there’s not enoug h of it to support the conclusion with strong probability –> the premises are not sufficient to support the conclusion reliably F alla cies o f W eak I n d uctio n Post-hoc, cum-hoc, si ngle cause, etc Hasty generalization Faulty analogy Self-sealing argument s Weak Inductive Argume nt: an argument in which, given true premises, it is impro bable that the conclusion is true F alla cie s v s . W eak A rg um en ts v s . F alla cie s o f W eak I n d uctio n Fallacious Argument: an argument exhibitin g a pattern of reasoning that makes the argume nt appear to be stronger than it is Remember: in weak ind uctive arguments, even if the premises are true they give very w eak inductive evidence for the conclusion. The implication here, however, is that the premises are at least “on track,” they are presenting the kind of evidence that does support the conclusio n. FA LLA CIE S O F AM BIG UIT Y ambiguous language ( words, concepts, etc. w/ two or more m eanings); or v ague language ( words, concepts, etc. w/ uncl ear meaning). K ey Feature : t he source of fallacy lies in the comple xity of n atural lan guage; t he apparen t strength of the conclusion r elies on a confusion stemming from eith er… I ncludes: E quivocation, amphiboly, compo sition & division F alla cies o f A m big uit y Lu ke, D arth V ader b etr a yed y our f a th er. T o a venge y our f a th er, y ou m ust k ill D arth V ader. -O bi W an K enobi = when the conclusion of an argument depends on a shift in the meaning of a term/phr ase in the premises. – equivocation = usin g ambiguous language to hide the truth or avoid commitment to a particular position – equivocation fallac y = using such ambiguity to support or refute an argument e.g. “it’s everyone’s right to be sad if they wish to be. therefore, it is righ t to be sad.” or “only man is logical. no woman is a man. there fore, no woman is logical.” E quiv o ca tio n F alla cy For sale: 1964 Ford with automatic transmission, radio, heater, power brakes, power steering, and windshield wipers in good condition.” When you inspect the car, you find that the windshield wipers are the only accessories that are in good condition. When you charge the vendor with misrepresentation, he replies, “You misread the ad. Read it again.” amphiboly = a statement that can be interpreted in more than one way; “An ‘amphiboly’ is not an ambiguous word (or phrase) but ambiguous syntax (word order or grammatical structure)” (Kreeft) “I’m having my family for dinner.” “Pizza ad: Two for one special price.” amphiboly fallacy = when the meaning of a phrase or sentence is indeterminate (as a result of poor syntax) and when further inferences are drawn based on the acceptance of an unintended meaning of the passages. Am phib oly F alla cy As chairman of one of the world’s foremost technology companies, Xavier too k great care in selecting a group of the finest minds in softw are engineering when forming a new information-managemen t team. In fact, all of the people he hired in creating thi s new team were the best-qualified, most experienced, and most talented in their fields. In this way, Xavier has guaranteed that he has formed the finest information-managemen t team possible. “If I stand up during the game, I’ll have a better view. Therefore, if everyon e stands up during the game, we’ll all have a better view.” Occurs when reasoning about parts and wholes, inferring that since a property is true of one, then it is also true of the other. ~ Composition: inferring that, sinc e each member/aspect/part of a whole (thing or set o f things) has a particular property, then the whole must have that same property. ~ Division: inferring that, sinc e a whole (thing or set of things) has a particular prop erty, then each member/aspect/part of whole must have that same p roperty. C om posit io n & D iv is io n FA LLA CIE S O F PR ES U M PTIO N (A.K.A. Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption) Key Feature: always involves an u nsupported or unjustified assumptio n; the reasoning relies on an implicit premise whos e truth is uncertain or implausible F alla cies o f P re su m ptio n Begging the question Complex question Slippery slope False dichotomy Suppressed evidence “G od i s r e al b eca use t h e B ib le s a ys s o , a nd t h e Bib le i s f r o m G od.” ” K illi n g p eople i s w ro ng, s o t h e d eath p enalt y is w ro ng.” ” C ig are tte s a re d eadly . T here fo re , s m okin g cig are tte s c a n k ill y ou.” A.K.A. petitio principii = to petition/beg/ap peal the the principle/issue in qu estion (circular reasoning) – occurs when the pre mises of an argument (explicitly or explicitly) assume th e conclusion of an argument instead of supporting it, thus d epending on the as yet unestablished conclusion e.g. “It’s illegal to break the law. Therefore, you must obey the law.” B eg gin g t h e Q uestio n an argument is suppos ed to make an inference from premises, things which are know n or accepted, to a conclusion, in order that things which are not yet known or accepted may become so. – petitio principii c onfuses the difference between holding or believing a position and being able to justify that position, i.e. the difference b etween the position itself and the arguments for that po sition – this is easy to do when your beliefs seem self-evident to you – boils down to… “i t just is.” B eg gin g t h e Q uestio n Reporter: “We have h eard that a half m illion chi ldren have died. I mean, t hat is m ore childr en than died in Hiroshima. And, y ou know, i s the price worth it?” A lbright: “I think t hat is a very hard c hoice, but the price, we think, the price i s worth it .” ( *Key conte xt: it wasn’t true that ha lf a m illion chi ldren had died) occurs when a question a) depends on an unjustified assumption and b) all answers appear to endorse that assumption. e.g. “Are you going to admit you’re wrong?” Yes = accepts that you’re wrong and will admit it No = accepts that you’re wrong but won’t admit it Instead, challenge the unstated premise directly: “Actually I don’t think I’m wrong, because…” Com ple x Q uestio n The Reid Technique – The 9-Step Technique Police Interrogators Use, a.k.a. Don’t Talk to Law Enforcement Com ple x Q uestio n S tep 7 = ‘presenting an alternative question’ “Did you plan this out, or did it just happen spur of the moment?” “Why’d you kill her?” etc. “This week it’s Robert E. Lee. I n otice that Stonewall Jackson’s c oming down. I wonder; is it G eorge Washington next week, and i s it Thomas Jefferson the week a fter? You know, you really do h ave to ask yourself, where does i t stop?” Sli p pery S lo p e FORM: If A, then B. And if B, then C. If C…, then Z! Therefore, If A, then Z! An argument that atte mpts to link an event with the inevitable occurrence of another (usually undesirable) event through a causal chain, without establishing each step in that chain. e.g. the classic ‘gat eway drug’ argument–if weed, then some stronger drug, then a nother, and another, until you’re a grifting junkie e.g. “and then the ne xt thing you know, …” It’s e it h er h ot o r i t ‘s c o ld . If y ou a re w ro ng, I m ust b e r ig ht. Y ou c a n v ote le ft o r y ou c a n v ote r ig ht. T here a re o nly t w o poli t ic a l p artie s f o r a ll t h ose p eople ? FORM: Either A or B. = If A, then not-B. I f B, then not-A. A. Therefore, not-B. If you are wrong, the n I must be right (not-wrong). You are wrong. Theref ore, I must be right. (this argument is val id but unsound because P1 is false) F als e D ic h oto m y ad: get an extra pizz a for free if our delivery drivers take longer than 8 minutes. Expectation:Reality: where the premise or premises are true and the argument is apparently reasonable, but a specific fact or set of facts is omitted; the omission is known (to the arguer) to be something that could change our perspective. Conclusion: Buy Crest toothpaste. Premise: Because it has fluoride. Conclusion: Don’t vote for Bill Clinton. Premises: Since Clinton has been president, heroin usage amongst teenagers has doubled. Sup pre sse d E vid en ce (Suppressed: most modern toothpastes have fluoride) (Suppressed: it doubled from .04% to .08%) it’s not just any argument that doe s not address every possible tangential a spect related to the issue discussed must be Suppressed Ev idence n o argument can addres s every possible aspect of an issue. often confused with S traw Man, fallacies of relevance, or fallacies of weak ind uction. to count as Suppresse d Evidence, there must be a specific fact/set of facts tha t’s intentionally excluded from the argument S up pre sse d E vid en ce appealing to an unqualified authority as a reason to accept or d ismiss the argument FORM: Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true. – this is DI STINCT from any appeal to authority whatsoever. h ere Person P’s credentials are irrelevant, dubious, i nsufficient , or missing entirely – judgment h angs on a question of who is a ‘qualified’ a uthority A ppeal t o U nq uali f ie d A uth orit y an argument that depe nds on invoking exact numbers to describe inexact noti ons; a claim that appears to be statistically signifi cant but is not. – trying to invest th e argument with a sense of prestige and authorit y/to impart more confidence in the assertions than t he evidence for them actually merits e.g. “this is the #1 toothpaste in the Universe!” e.g. “people think hi ppos are mean, but actually, they have been shown to be 63% more generous than polar bears.” M is le ad in g P re cis io n
Video Analysis The video has fruitful contexts for observing fallacious reasoning, biases that impact how evidence is being collected or interpreted, and attempts at persuasive maneuvers. Based on you
CO GNIT IO N BIAS, IRRATIO NALITY & BELIEFS Resta te m en t (…w hat t h e t e x t S A YS) = A ccu ra te ly & c h arit a b ly r e p re se n tin g i t s c o n te n ts /id ea s D esc rip tio n (…w h at t h e t e x t D O ES) = Id en tif y in g f e a tu re s o f t h e t e x t, d esc rib in g c h oic e s r e : h ow i d ea s/ in fo rm atio n a re i n tr o d u ce d & d ev elo p ed , w hat t o p ic s a re d is c u sse d , h ow e x am ple s a n d e v id en ce a re u se d , e tc . In te rp re ta tio n ( …w hat t h e t e x t M EA N S) = A naly zin g t h e t e x t t o o ffe r a m ea n in g f o r t h e t e x t a s a w hole ; ev a lu atin g i t s s ig n if ic a n ce O rie nta tio n t o w ard m ate ria ls What’s * y o u r* p ers p ectiv e o n t h e t e x t? W hic h p arts d o y o u a g re e & d is a g re e w it h ? D o y o u t h in k t h e a u th or s u cce ed s i n t h eir s ta te d a im s? W hy o r w hy n ot? W hat w ou ld y o u c h an ge? H ow ? W hat Y O U t h in k A BO UT w hat t h e t e x t m ea n s O rie nta tio n t o w ard m ate ria ls WHA T I S C O GNIT IV E BIA S? they are rational ada ptations; as natural results of how our cognitive systems wor k, they help our brains to address: too much information, complex environment need to act fast limited memory and pr ocessing power = systematic tendenci es to make a judgment on the basis of inadequate/ irrelevan t information, often affecting perception, memory, and attention Yagoda’s definition: the collection of faulty ways of thinking that is apparently ha rdwired into the human brain C og nit iv e B ia se s World / N atu re C on sc io u s ex p erie n ce each day, we’re e xposed to on average105,000 words 6,000 – 10,000 ads 34GB of information in total “W hil e t h e m ost i m porta n t t y p e o f e v en t m od el i s t h e w ork in g m od el, w hic h s im ula te s w hat i s g o in g o n i n t h e h ere -a n d-n ow , a n y m en ta l sim ula tio n o f a n e v en t g en era te s a n e v en t m od el: w e u se t h em w hen w e f o re ca st f u tu re e v en ts , i m ag in e h yp oth etic a l e v en ts , u n ders ta n d ev en ts t h at a re n arra te d t o u s, a n d r e co n str u ct m em orie s o f p ast e v en ts . W ork in g m od els a re p artia l a n d i n co m ple te r e p re se n ta tio n s of a s it u atio n co n str a in ed b y c rit e ria o f r e le v a n ce a s p erc e iv ed b y t h e su bje ct. T hey a re ro u gh -a n d-r e a d y m ap s o f u n fo ld in g e v en ts , c o n ta in in g o n ly w hat t h e s u bje ct n eed s f o r g ra sp in g a n d n avig atin g i n t h e t e rra in , a n d l it tle e ls e . T hus, t h e w ork in g m od el w il l t y p ic a lly r e p re se n t r e le v a n t e n tit ie s a n d a g en ts , t h e c a u sa l a n d in te n tio n al l in ks b etw een t h em , a n d t h e p la ce a n d t im e i n w hic h t h e ev en t t a k es p la ce .” ( T aves e t a l, p . 5 ) if a working strategy is already in place, the cost of trying alternative strategies may not be outweighed by the mere possibility of a better solution. one way we mitigate the risks of decision-making is by using heuristics. in environments that change often, people are more likely to try alternatives or rely on other sources of information, like socially-acquired strategies Decis io n-m akin g u n d er u n ce rt a in ty = cognitive frameworks, templates, or rule systems that we apply to the world to make sense of it A knowledge structure “comprised of an individual’s organized general knowledge about a particular concept that has accumulated from one’s similar past experiences. Schemas serve as structured expectations…” Sch em as = the shortcuts & rules of thumb by which we make judgments and predictions they quickly suggest a solution to a problem, often operating automatically and unconsciously; helpful guides for judgment that are “going to be helpful more often than not” H eu ris tic s = systematic tendenci es to make a judgment on the basis of inadequate/ irrelevan t information, often affecting perception, memory, a nd attention biases impact percept ion of information, collection and selection, interpreta tion, memory and storage–they intervene @ all levels of our i nferential processes vs. fallacies: common argument patterns that make arguments appear stronger than they are; psychologically persuasive often because of bias es C og nit iv e B ia se s Assu m ptio n s P u rp oseQ uestio n @ i s su e C on ce p tsIn fo / D ata P oin t o f V ie w Im plic a tio n s & C on se q u en ce s In te re p re ta tio n & I n fe re n ce T he T ho ug ht-P ro ce ss What w e’r e t r y in g t o fig u re o u t & w hy T he l o gic s w e u se t o d o t h e f ig u rin g R esu lt s /p ro d u cts , m ea n in gs d ra w n “T hou gh t c re a te s m ea n in g” Kah nem an : T hin k in g, F ast a n d S lo w Syste m -1 T hin kin gSyste m -2 T hin kin g Rea ctiv e, q u ic k , i n stin ctiv e, h olis tic , m en ta l s h ortc u ts , sc h em as, h eu ris tic s R efle ctiv e, d elib era tiv e, a n aly tic a l, p ro ce d u ra l, in vo lv ed i n m ak in g j u dgm en ts & a rg u m en ts Confirmation Bias T h e 6 ” M ost D am ag in g ” B ia se s Fundamental Attributi on Error The Bias Blind SpotThe Anchoring EffectThe Representativenes s Heuristic Projection Bias123456 affects how we interpret, gather, and recall information i t’s a matte r of what we do w ith disconfirming evidence ; we tend to hold on to o ur initial hypotheses even in the face of s uch evidenc e the tendency for people to attend to information that agrees with t heir curren t perspective and to ignore, rationalize, or justify i nformation that runs counter to their perspective S elf-fulfill ing prophecies. / “You see what you want to see.” E .g. Salem W itch Trials, conspiracies, and everyday life C onfir m atio n B ia s Leo Tolstoy, What Is Art? (1897) “I think that one of the hardest tasks a human mind can face is reserving judgment about a conviction that has always seemed to you obvious and thinking about how maybe that might not be right.” – Daniel Dennett . ..Is Being Wrong a V irtue? present bias is the t endency, when considering a trade-off between two future mo ments, to more heavily weight the one closer to the

Needs help with similar assignment?

We are available 24x7 to deliver the best services and assignment ready within 3-12hours? Order a custom-written, plagiarism-free paper

Get Answer Over WhatsApp Order Paper Now