Rational
thinking and is not synonymous with rationalizing thought. These
phrases are often, mistakenly, used interchangeably. Rationalizing thought has
an Aristotelian flavor, in that it involves putting forth reason for
essentially any behavior or thought. Rationality is a weak concept, as it is
applied in everyday dialogue. Most people are rational, if rational means an
ability to provide some form of a reason for whatever. Cognitive science provides
a different conceptualization of rationality; one that is consistent and is
subject to assessment. An array of the components
underpinning rational thinking have been assessed. Recently a comprehensive
measure of rationality was developed: Rationality Quotient.
In discussing what makes humans unique as compared
to other animals Stanovich asserts "what is really singular about humans:
that they gain control of their lives in a way unique among lifeforms on Earth-
by rational self determination (Stanovich, 2004, p.275)." Humans are
capable of overriding automatic cognitive processes by using reflective
thinking (category of Type 2 processing).
2
categories of rationality (excerpt from interview with
Stanovich, West, Toplak Research Lab)
"Cognitive scientists recognize two types of
rationality: instrumental and epistemic[As mentioned previously]. The simplest
definition of instrumental rationality, the one that is strongly grounded in
the practical world, is: Behaving in the world so that you get exactly what you
most want, given the resources (physical andmental) available to you. Somewhat
more technically, we could characterize instrumental rationality as the
optimization of the individual’s goal fulfillment.
The
other aspect of rationality studied by cognitive scientists is termed epistemic
rationality. This aspect of rationality concerns how well beliefs map onto the
actual structure of the world. The two types of rationality are related. In
order to take actions that fulfill our goals, we need to base those actions on
beliefs that are properly calibrated to the world.
Epistemic
rationality is about what is true and instrumental rationality is about what to
do. For our beliefs to be rational they must correspond to the way the world
is—they must be true. For our actions to be rational they must be the best
means toward our goals—they must be the best things to do."
Rational thinking skills are important. They are as important as intelligence. Intelligence and rationality are often
dissociated. Research demonstrates that intelligence is often a weak predictor
of rationality. This has been shown over
a wide range of studies. Intelligence is
important, but there is more to good thinking than intelligence. Intelligence reflects reasoning abilities
across a wide variety of domains particularly novel ones. In addition, intelligence reflects general
declarative knowledge acquired through acculturated learning. Rationality reflects appropriate goal
setting, goal optimization, and holding evidence-based beliefs.
Chapter
2 from In Evidence We Trust focuses
on rationality. Some key points from Chapter 2 (Hale, 2013):
"Society
is replete with examples of intelligent people doing foolish things. This seems
puzzling considering that intelligent people (as indicated by intelligence
tests and their proxies-SAT, etc.) are generally thought of as rational, smart
people. So, it may come as a surprise to find out that intelligent people are
not necessarily rational people.
Many
researchers suggest that a key characteristic of critical thinking is the
ability to recognize one’s own fallibility when evaluating and generating
evidence-recognizing the danger of weighing evidence according to one’s own
beliefs.
Kelley
(1990) argues that 'the ability to step back from our train of thought . . . .
is a virtue because it is the only way to check the results of our thinking,
the only way to avoid jumping to conclusions, the only way to stay in touch
with the facts'(p. 6).
Rationality
is concerned with two key things: what is true and what to do (Manktelow,
2004). In order for our beliefs.
TASKS
THAT FAIL TO SHOW ASSOCIATIONS WITH COGNITIVE ABILITY
Noncausal
base-rate usage (Stanovich & West, 1998c, 1999, 2008)
Conjunction
fallacy between subjects (Stanovich & West, 2008)
Framing
between subjects (Stanovich & West, 2008)
Anchoring
effect (Stanovich & West, 2008)
Evaluability
less is more effect (Stanovich & West, 2008)
Proportion
dominance effect (Stanovich & West, 2008)
Sunk
cost effect (Stanovich & West, 2008; Parker & Fischhoff, 2005)
Risk/benefit
t confounding (Stanovich & West, 2008)
Omission
bias (Stanovich & West, 2008)
Perspective
bias (Stanovich & West, 2008)
Certainty
effect (Stanovich & West, 2008)
WTP/WTA
difference (Stanovich & West, 2008)
My-side
bias between and within S (Stanovich & West, 2007, 2008)
Newcomb’s
problem (Stanovich & West, 1999; Toplak & Stanovich, 2002)"
[intelligence
tests measure cognitive ability]
Often,
people mistakenly make the assumption that Stanovich is implying the
intelligence is not important. He asserts that Intelligence is an important
cognitive ability associated with an array of outcomes. Rationality is also important
and it measures different cognitive skills than what is measured on
intelligence tests and their proxies. Rationality assesses cognitive ability
and cognitive style. It is ideal to rate high in intelligence and rationality.
Posts
