Publicação
Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines?
| 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. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Zilhão, António |
| Assunto: | rational choice, human rationality, cognitive complexity, psychology of reasoning, adaptive behavior, optimality research, biological rationality |
| Ano: | 2018 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | artigo |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | Universidade de Lisboa |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa |
| _version_ | 1865920850726748160 |
|---|---|
| author | Zilhão, António |
| author_facet | Zilhão, António Zilhão, António |
| author_role | author |
| contributor_name_str_mv | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto da ULisboa |
| country_str | PT |
| creators_json_str | [{\"Person.name\":\"Zilhão, António\"}] |
| datacite.contributors.contributor.contributorName.fl_str_mv | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto da ULisboa |
| datacite.creators.creator.creatorName.fl_str_mv | Zilhão, António |
| datacite.date.Accepted.fl_str_mv | 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| datacite.date.available.fl_str_mv | 2021-10-04T15:15:26Z |
| datacite.date.embargoed.fl_str_mv | 2021-10-04T15:15:26Z |
| datacite.rights.fl_str_mv | http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| datacite.subjects.subject.fl_str_mv | rational choice, human rationality, cognitive complexity, psychology of reasoning, adaptive behavior, optimality research, biological rationality |
| datacite.titles.title.fl_str_mv | Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? |
| dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto da ULisboa |
| dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv | Zilhão, António |
| dc.date.Accepted.fl_str_mv | 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| dc.date.available.fl_str_mv | 2021-10-04T15:15:26Z |
| dc.date.embargoed.fl_str_mv | 2021-10-04T15:15:26Z |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv | application/pdf |
| dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv | http://hdl.handle.net/10451/49784 |
| dc.language.none.fl_str_mv | eng |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv | Brill Academic Publishers |
| dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv | http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv | rational choice, human rationality, cognitive complexity, psychology of reasoning, adaptive behavior, optimality research, biological rationality |
| dc.title.fl_str_mv | Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| 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. |
| dirty | 0 |
| eu_rights_str_mv | openAccess |
| format | article |
| fulltext.url.fl_str_mv | https://repositorio.ulisboa.pt/bitstreams/4157339b-877b-41de-bc36-347860ab56cc/download |
| id | ul_f01d1cc4d9c79cfd0dc963fd39653311 |
| identifier.url.fl_str_mv | http://hdl.handle.net/10451/49784 |
| instacron_str | ul |
| institution | Universidade de Lisboa |
| instname_str | Universidade de Lisboa |
| language | eng |
| network_acronym_str | ul |
| network_name_str | Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa |
| oai_identifier_str | oai:repositorio.ulisboa.pt:10451/49784 |
| organization_str_mv | urn:organizationAcronym:ul |
| person_str_mv | Zilhão, António Zilhão, António https://www.ciencia-id.pt/401D-94ED-1127 401D-94ED-1127 |
| publishDate | 2018 |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv | Brill Academic Publishers |
| reponame_str | Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa |
| repository_id_str | urn:repositoryAcronym:ul |
| service_str_mv | urn:repositoryAcronym:ul |
| spelling | engBrill Academic Publisherspt_PTFour 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.application/pdfpt_PTCognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines?PersonalZilhão, AntónioDSpacehttp://dspace.org/items/9b420cf7-295c-4593-bf39-d8a7f58d9182DSpacehttp://dspace.org/items/9b420cf7-295c-4593-bf39-d8a7f58d9182Teiga ZilhãoAntónio JoséCiência IDhttps://www.ciencia-id.pt401D-94ED-1127HostingInstitutionOrganizationalRepositório Científico de Acesso Aberto da ULisboae-mailmailto:repositorio@reitoria.ulisboa.ptrepositorio@reitoria.ulisboa.ptDOIIsPartOfhttps://doi.org/10.1163/9789004359475_0132021-10-04T15:15:26Z20182018-01-01T00:00:00ZHandlehttp://hdl.handle.net/10451/49784http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2open accessrational choice, human rationality, cognitive complexity, psychology of reasoning, adaptive behavior, optimality research, biological rationality216496 bytesliteraturehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2application/pdffulltexthttps://repositorio.ulisboa.pt/bitstreams/4157339b-877b-41de-bc36-347860ab56cc/downloadPoznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities111224239Leiden |
| spellingShingle | Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? 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 Zilhão, António rational choice, human rationality, cognitive complexity, psychology of reasoning, adaptive behavior, optimality research, biological rationality |
| status | SINGLETON |
| subject.fl_str_mv | rational choice, human rationality, cognitive complexity, psychology of reasoning, adaptive behavior, optimality research, biological rationality |
| title | 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? Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? |
| title_short | Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? |
| title_sort | Cognition and Rationality: Writing straight with crooked lines? |
| topic | rational choice, human rationality, cognitive complexity, psychology of reasoning, adaptive behavior, optimality research, biological rationality |
| topic_facet | rational choice, human rationality, cognitive complexity, psychology of reasoning, adaptive behavior, optimality research, biological rationality |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/10451/49784 |
| visible | 1 |