Thinking and Decision Making

0
0
1904 days ago, 669 views
PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Where We Are. We\'re proceeding with our voyage through higher insight. We\'ve covered:CategorizationLanguage

Presentation Transcript

Slide 1

Langston, PSY 4040 Cognitive Psychology Notes 13 Reasoning and Decision Making

Slide 2

Where We Are We " re proceeding with our voyage through higher insight. We " ve secured: Categorization Language—Structure Language—Meaning And we proceed with: Reasoning/Decision making Human variables

Slide 3

Plan of Attack We " ll take a gander at three territories: Logic. We " ve as of now observed that the principles of rationale wear " t represent execution on an assortment of psychological undertakings. You won't be astonished to realize that individuals " s thinking about rationale is additionally flawed. Heuristics: What easy routes do individuals take and how do those alternate ways influence choices? Likelihood: People are famously awful at comprehension likelihood. We " ll take a gander at that and attempt to comprehend why.

Slide 4

Logic We " ll consider restrictive thinking here. You " re gave a manage as an if-then proclamation. You need to test this administer to check whether it is bolstered by the circumstance. Individuals are bad at this.

Slide 5

Logic Here " s a govern: If there " s haze, then the plane will be redirected. Here are four trial of this lead: Present a circumstance where there " s mist. Exhibit a circumstance where there " s no haze. Introduce a circumstance where the plane has been occupied. Display a circumstance where the plane has not been redirected.

Slide 6

Logic The manage is: If there " s mist, then the plane will be occupied. I " ve added results to the four tests: Present a circumstance where there " s haze, find that the plane has been occupied. Exhibit a circumstance where there " s no mist, find that the plane has been redirected. Display a circumstance where the plane has been redirected, find that there " s no mist. Exhibit a circumstance where the plane has not been redirected, find that there " s no haze. Assess the tests and put a T or F on your paper for each.

Slide 7

Logic The administer is: If there " s haze, then the plane will be occupied. The four tests: Fog, redirected. No mist, occupied. Occupied, no haze. Not occupied, no mist. The precarious part is that exclusive two of these tests are substantial approaches to look at the speculation. Two of them make little difference to the theory. In this way, your answers ought to have been: T I can " t know I can " t know T

Slide 8

A B 1 2 Logic People have a tendency to be quite terrible at these issues. Attempt this one: If there " s a much number on one side, then there " s a vowel on the other. Which would it be a good idea for you to flip to check?

Slide 9

A B 1 2 Logic The right answer is 2 and B. In a trial of comparable issues, individuals pick: 2: 33% 2 and A: 46% 2 and B: 4%

Slide 10

Logic How would you know what the right answer ought to be? Consider this issue: If the red light shows up, then the motor is overheating. Two legitimate tests: Modus ponens: The red light showed up. Hence the motor is overheating. Modus tollens: The motor is not overheating. Along these lines, the red light should not have showed up.

Slide 11

Logic How would you know what the right answer ought to be? Consider this issue: If the red light shows up, then the motor is overheating. Two invalid tests: Denying the precursor: The red light did not show up. In this manner, the motor is not overheating. Asserting the resulting: The motor is overheating. Thusly, the red light showed up.

Slide 12

Logic as a rule terms: If p then q: Modus ponens: p. Hence q. Modus tollens: not q. Thusly, not p. Denying the forerunner: not p. Accordingly, not q. Insisting the resulting: q. Subsequently, p.

Slide 13

Logic If you take a gander at the invalid ones, they accept a relationship that is not expressed in the theory. Asserting the subsequent: " If p then q. Show q, must be p. " That " s truly saying " If p then q and if q then p. " Denying the precursor: " If p then q. Display not p, must not be q. " That " s truly saying the best way to get q is p, and I didn " t assert that in the speculation. I never said " If not p then not q. "

Slide 14

Logic To come back to a before case: If there " s haze, then the plane will be redirected. Certifying the ensuing: " Present plane is redirected, must be haze. " But, there are different ways that planes can be redirected. I didn " t say " If redirected, then haze. " Denying the precursor: " Present not haze, must not be redirected. " Again, planes can be occupied for different reasons. I didn " t say " If not mist then not redirected. "

Slide 15

Logic Let " s revisit alternate illustrations and make sense of why the right answers are what they are…

Slide 16

Logic The intriguing intellectual question is: Why are individuals so terrible at this? Unlawful transformation. Individuals tend to switch the request of the terms or make it into a biconditional issue. They read " if p then q " as " if p then q and if q then p. " However, the request matters. With the exception of recording things and being watchful, there " s not a tip to maintain a strategic distance from this sort of disarray.

Slide 17

Logic The intriguing intellectual question is: Why are individuals so awful at this? Illegal change. Consider this: If you smoke, then you will get growth. Substantial: I smoke and didn " t get malignancy, so it " s off-base. Invalid: I got disease and I never smoked, so it " s off-base. On the off chance that you turned it around to: If tumor, then smoked, the invalid test gets to be distinctly substantial.

Slide 18

Logic The intriguing subjective question is: Why are individuals so awful at this? Illegal transformation. Digression: This is identified with one of the topics of the class. Individuals commit errors, and a great deal of those oversights are generally simple to foresee. For instance, in the event that you surpass the limit of STM, you won't remember all that you are attempting to recollect. This is one of those cases. Utilize this class to pick up knowledge into how things may turn out badly, and afterward make them go right.

Slide 19

Logic The fascinating subjective question is: Why are individuals so terrible at this? Affirmation inclination. Individuals tend to affirm what they accept to be genuine as opposed to attempt to disconfirm. Since q is in the theory, when individuals see q, they surmise that " s the one to pick for the test. That " s some portion of what " s going ahead in the card sorting errand. Affirmation inclination can likewise cooperate with different parts of individuals " s thinking issues to strengthen generalizations.

Slide 20

18 coke 43 brew Logic Another fascinating subjective question is: Why are individuals so great at some restrictive thinking issues? On the off chance that you " re under 21 then try not to drink liquor.

Slide 21

18 coke 43 lager Logic Most individuals figure 18 and brew with no issue. Why? One theory is logical support. Another is that you have developed a capacity to distinguish con artists and are great at authorization circumstances.

Slide 22

Logic The Wason determination CogLab inspected this, let " s swing to that now…

Slide 23

Heuristics There are two approaches to take care of issues. Algorithmic: Go through each progression all the while. Duplicate 365 by 48. This is typically unfeasible, and individuals once in a while do it. Heuristics: Rough and prepared principles that find the solution more often than not. We " ll take a gander at heuristics in considering.

Slide 24

Heuristics Representativeness heuristic: Judge how likely something depends on how illustrative it is. Which is a more probable result of flipping a reasonable coin six circumstances consecutively: H T H T H T Most individuals pick the second since it looks more irregular. Obviously, they " re break even with.

Slide 25

Heuristics Some ramifications of representativeness: Lottery play. Does 1 2 3 4 5 6 appear like a decent arrangement of numbers to play? A great many people think it " s a terrible decision since it " s " so far-fetched. " But, every arrangement of numbers is similarly likely. On the off chance that you " reexamining about playing, inquire as to whether you would play 1 2 3 4 5 6. On the off chance that the appropriate response is no, you comprehend the chances and shouldn " t play. In any case, 1 2 3 4 5 6 is quite illustrative of numbers other individuals won " t play, which implies many individuals do play it, and that settles on it an awful decision (you " ll split the pot with more individuals, diminishing the normal estimation of the lottery result). Numbers > 31 are additionally terrible due to representativeness.

Slide 26

Heuristics Some ramifications of representativeness: Stereotypes. On the off chance that something you see is illustrative of a generalization you will probably see it and include it as proof (particularly with affirmation predisposition).

Slide 27

Heuristics Availability heuristic. When you choose how likely something is, think about a case, and construct your gauge in light of that it is so difficult. Are there more words that start with a k or have a k as the third letter?

Slide 28

Heuristics Another illustration: Pick a number from 1-9. Subtract 5, duplicate by 3, and square it. In the event that more than one digit, include them together (e.g., 64 = 6 + 4 = 10 = 1 + 0 = 1) If your number is under 5, include 5. Something else, subtract 4. Increase by 2 and subtract 6. Outline digit to the letter of the letters in order it runs with (1 = A, 2 = B… ) Pick a nation that starts with that letter. Take the second letter of the nation and pick a creature name that starts with that letter. What shading is that creature?

Slide 29

Heuristics There are no dark elephants in Denmark. Accessibility: Denmark and elephant. Representativeness: Gray.

Slide 30

Heuristics Availability is impacted by a considerable measure of variables that ought to be obvious to individuals completing a subjective class: Frequency: More continuous = more accessible. Commonality: More well known = more accessible. Striking quality: More clear = more accessible. Recency: More late = more accessible. How could these impact individuals " s feeling that driving is more secure than flying?

Slide 31

Heuristics Simulation heuristic. Simplicity of reproduction impacts individuals " s judgments. Two men are on flights that leave in the meantime and are riding in a similar auto. They arrive 1/2 hour late. Mr. Crane " s flight left on time, yet Mr. Tee " s flight was deferred an

SPONSORS