Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10451/49784 |
Resumo: | Four different approaches dominate the modern discussion around the topic of how best to define human rationality. These are the following: 1) Unbounded Rationality (UR); 2) Optimization under Constraints (OuC); 3) Heuristics and Biases (H&B); 4) Ecological Rationality (ER). Typically, proponents of approaches 3) and 4) criticize the models put forth by the proponents of approaches 1) and 2) for their cognitive unrealism. However, many ethologists contend that it makes sense to account for data gathered in animal behavior research along the lines of precisely these models. Elaborating upon this claim, Stanovich suggested that models of the kinds 1) and 2) are more appropriate to account for the behavior of creatures endowed with simple cognitive architectures rather than to account for the behavior of humans. Moreover, according to Stanovich’s own new approach, it is the cognitive complexity of humans rather than their computational limitations that makes them (partially) irrational. Could he be right? Following a suggestion made by Kacelnik (2006), I will contend that, in order to try to find out an answer to this question, one needs to realize that the term “rationality” in use in this debate has to be understood as referring to, at least, three distinct properties; and that, once one analyzes each of them properly, most of the above-mentioned approaches, including Stanovich’s, reveal themselves to be untenable. |
id |
RCAP_40fea984cdd25a8b08fac4b13d05ddb0 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.ul.pt:10451/49784 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines?rational choice, human rationality, cognitive complexity, psychology of reasoning, adaptive behavior, optimality research, biological rationalityFour different approaches dominate the modern discussion around the topic of how best to define human rationality. These are the following: 1) Unbounded Rationality (UR); 2) Optimization under Constraints (OuC); 3) Heuristics and Biases (H&B); 4) Ecological Rationality (ER). Typically, proponents of approaches 3) and 4) criticize the models put forth by the proponents of approaches 1) and 2) for their cognitive unrealism. However, many ethologists contend that it makes sense to account for data gathered in animal behavior research along the lines of precisely these models. Elaborating upon this claim, Stanovich suggested that models of the kinds 1) and 2) are more appropriate to account for the behavior of creatures endowed with simple cognitive architectures rather than to account for the behavior of humans. Moreover, according to Stanovich’s own new approach, it is the cognitive complexity of humans rather than their computational limitations that makes them (partially) irrational. Could he be right? Following a suggestion made by Kacelnik (2006), I will contend that, in order to try to find out an answer to this question, one needs to realize that the term “rationality” in use in this debate has to be understood as referring to, at least, three distinct properties; and that, once one analyzes each of them properly, most of the above-mentioned approaches, including Stanovich’s, reveal themselves to be untenable.Brill Academic PublishersRepositório da Universidade de LisboaZilhão, António2021-10-04T15:15:26Z20182018-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10451/49784engZilhão, A. 2018. “Cognition and Rationality: Writing Straight with Crooked Lines?” in Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 111 – Rationality and Decision-Making - From Normative Rules to Heuristics. Ed. by M. Hetmanski. Brill Academic Publishers, pp. 224-239.https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004359475_013info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-08T16:51:59Zoai:repositorio.ul.pt:10451/49784Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T22:00:24.979109Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? |
title |
Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? |
spellingShingle |
Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? Zilhão, António rational choice, human rationality, cognitive complexity, psychology of reasoning, adaptive behavior, optimality research, biological rationality |
title_short |
Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? |
title_full |
Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? |
title_fullStr |
Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? |
title_sort |
Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? |
author |
Zilhão, António |
author_facet |
Zilhão, António |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Zilhão, António |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
rational choice, human rationality, cognitive complexity, psychology of reasoning, adaptive behavior, optimality research, biological rationality |
topic |
rational choice, human rationality, cognitive complexity, psychology of reasoning, adaptive behavior, optimality research, biological rationality |
description |
Four different approaches dominate the modern discussion around the topic of how best to define human rationality. These are the following: 1) Unbounded Rationality (UR); 2) Optimization under Constraints (OuC); 3) Heuristics and Biases (H&B); 4) Ecological Rationality (ER). Typically, proponents of approaches 3) and 4) criticize the models put forth by the proponents of approaches 1) and 2) for their cognitive unrealism. However, many ethologists contend that it makes sense to account for data gathered in animal behavior research along the lines of precisely these models. Elaborating upon this claim, Stanovich suggested that models of the kinds 1) and 2) are more appropriate to account for the behavior of creatures endowed with simple cognitive architectures rather than to account for the behavior of humans. Moreover, according to Stanovich’s own new approach, it is the cognitive complexity of humans rather than their computational limitations that makes them (partially) irrational. Could he be right? Following a suggestion made by Kacelnik (2006), I will contend that, in order to try to find out an answer to this question, one needs to realize that the term “rationality” in use in this debate has to be understood as referring to, at least, three distinct properties; and that, once one analyzes each of them properly, most of the above-mentioned approaches, including Stanovich’s, reveal themselves to be untenable. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z 2021-10-04T15:15:26Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10451/49784 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10451/49784 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Zilhão, A. 2018. “Cognition and Rationality: Writing Straight with Crooked Lines?” in Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 111 – Rationality and Decision-Making - From Normative Rules to Heuristics. Ed. by M. Hetmanski. Brill Academic Publishers, pp. 224-239. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004359475_013 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Brill Academic Publishers |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Brill Academic Publishers |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799134551003365376 |