PHIL 210 Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Fundamental Attribution Error, Critical Thinking, Confirmation Bias

304 views6 pages
28 Nov 2011
Department
Course
Chapter 7
November-24-10
1:29 AM
Conformation Bias: a blanket expression for a family of biases, a wide variety of
ways in which beliefs, expectations, or emotional commitments regarding a
hypothesis can lead to its seeming more highly confirmed than the evidence really
warrants.
oEx. Seeing resemblances between a newborn and it's parents
oAre extremely common, and can be manifested in different ways:
oBiases toward evidence supporting the belief in question
Naturally one way of inflating the evidence supporting a belief
already held is to go about looking for evidence in a way that is
particularly likely to find results favourable to the belief.
This amounts to giving a "free pass" to seemingly supportive
evidence by not really questioning favourable evidence or not
making the effort to explore contradictions between various
favourable evidence.
oBiases toward evidence undermining a belief.
Evidential Neglect: a bias against some bit of countervailing
information may be manifest in the way we hastily dismiss or
disregard it, without much regard for its potential virtues.
Disproportianate criticism: Sometimes evidence that undermines
'B' reveives a biased treatment of just the opposite sort. Rather than
ignoring or dismissing countervailing evidence, we may often subject
it to a harsh and critical examination.
Metacognition: the theme that critical thinking begins at home.
Self-fulfilling prophecies: predictions that come true not simply because the
predictor foresees how events will unfold, but because the prediction itself has an
effect on how things unfold.
oEx: a palm reader tells his team will win against a better team, now he has
the confidence to play better and wins the game.
oA prediction is just the sort of thing that can introduce a powerful
confirmation bias at the levels of perception, cognition, and memory.
oThe fact that a positive prediction was made at all would cause the subject to
notice his positive actions as positive and not dwell on the negative actions.
oWe don't need an expectation for the effect to occur - just salience (ie.
Superstitions)
oConfirming instances have a much stronger tendency to remind people of the
rule/theory/belef/prophecy than non-confirming instances
oWhen you expect (consciously or not) some outcome, this can create a
confirmation bias.
Framing Effects: influences brought on by the way a situation is described to think
of a situation differently.
Repetition: one important factor determining a subject's likelihood of ranking a
statement as true is often the statement has been repeated to the subject in the
past.
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-2 of the document.
Unlock all 6 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
oIf we hear something repeatedly, it is easier for us to consider it as truthful or
at least reasonable.
Search Methods and Confirmation Bias: A way of artificially inflated evidence
supporting 'B' is to go about looking for evidence in a way that is particularly likely
to find results favourable to the belief.
Structural Biases: situations (including experimental situations) that have a
structure that preferentially yields confirming evidence.
Chapter 8
November-24-10
4:01 PM
Social Cognition: the existence of other people in a reasoning context, and the
nature of our relations with them, apply our judgements and inferences in two
broad ways:
1. Reasoning about other people
2. Reasoning influenced by them
Thinking in group contexts: the number and kind of people around us are a major
influence on the way we reason, problem solve and make decisions.
oThey are sources of much of our information
oMuch are reasoning is about them or at least affected by their presence.
oIf we wish to reason well in group contexts over the long term, we must be
aware of pitfalls - with our reasoning about, and in the presence of, other
people tends to be flawed in a predictable set of ways - so we can
metacognitively monitor ourselves and the situation to know when a red flag or
caution is required.
oIn many social contexts there are powerful pressures that work to prevent
challenging and debunking dubious beliefs, or even known falsehoods,
resulting in propositions that continue to circulate despite being unjustifiable.
oCommon forms of poor reasoning about others have a few shared
characteristics:
Optimistic assessment of ourselves
Idealized/oversimplified theorizing
Over-emphasis on character rather than context
Fundamental Attribution Error: a bias in favour of explaining someone's situation
/behaviour in terms of their personality, character or dispositions while overlooking
explanations in terms of context, accidents or the environment more generally.
oReasoning about other people based on small samples of their behaviour is
therefore a red flag.
oThe problem with reasoning from limited behaviour to deep personality traits
might be obvious on evidential grounds, but what we need to bear in mind is
how intuitively tempting we find such inferences in the social realm
oA willingness to treat momentary behaviour as a "one-off" can help us form
more accurate impressions of the people around us.
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-2 of the document.
Unlock all 6 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get OneClass Grade+

Unlimited access to all notes and study guides.

Grade+All Inclusive
$10 USD/m
You will be charged $120 USD upfront and auto renewed at the end of each cycle. You may cancel anytime under Payment Settings. For more information, see our Terms and Privacy.
Payments are encrypted using 256-bit SSL. Powered by Stripe.