Study your flashcards anywhere!
Download the official Cram app for free >
 Shuffle
Toggle OnToggle Off
 Alphabetize
Toggle OnToggle Off
 Front First
Toggle OnToggle Off
 Both Sides
Toggle OnToggle Off
 Read
Toggle OnToggle Off
How to study your flashcards.
Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key
Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key
H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key
A key: Read text to speech.a key
33 Cards in this Set
 Front
 Back
deterministic

deductive


probabilistic

inductive


normative theory

how one ought to reason... ie rules of logic


descriptive theory

how people actually reason... ie heuristics and biases


deductive reasoning examples

linear syllogisms, conditional, categorical syllogisms


linear syllogisms

between two items, at least one of the items is common to both premises, linear relationships and quantitative or qualitative


conditional reasoning

where the reasoner must draw a conclusion based on an if (condition) then (consequence) proposition... if the antecedent is met, then the consequent even will follow


distance effects

we more quickly say things are bigger/larger than other things if they are further apart, ex. horse is larger than a cat we say faster than horse is larger than a goat


categorical reasoning

how similar (or dissimilar) are categories X and Y..
all are X and Y some X are Y no X is Y 

categorical reasoning uses...

euler circles


types of categorical syllogisms

atmospheric heuristic:
universal affirmative universal negative particular affirmative particular negative 

euler circles used to...

determine is there is any condition in which both premises could be true but conclusion is false... people often mistake validity for truth


atmospheric heuristic with universal vs particular

if at least one "some" in premises, prefer "some" in the conclusion


atmospheric heuristic with positive vs negative

If at least one "not" in the premises, then prefer "not" in the conclusion


mental models of categorical reasoning

construct model for each premise and try to combine them.. get more wrong when need more than one model to falsify the syllogism


problem with categorical syllogisms

usually too much info, try to create representation, if we can't then we use heuristics.. big WM load, may forget or incorrectly process info, still makes mistakes


pragmatic reasoning schema

used to decide what is trye based on experience


permission schema

if a certain action is to be taken, then a certain condition must be met. "if you are going to drink beer, then you must be 21"


evolutionary approach: social contract schema

standard social contracts, if you take the benefit, you must pay the cost... natural selection means we must compete with others, so our brains have evolved innate mechanisms that look for "cheaters" and "threats"


cheater detection: role of emotion?

in some conditions, people do better if they are pissed or angry


encapsulated reasoning

reasoning according to one scheme does not transfer well to other situations


contextbound reasoning

success at the problem will depend on how well the problem invokes or matches the schme


base rate

percent of people in the population that have cancer (or anything)


Normative theories: optimal

current evidence, base rate


Bayes Theorem  3 things

base rate
hit rate false alarm rate 

can make errors in descriptive reasoning for 2 reasons....

dont properly consider the current evidence.
dont properly consider the base rate 

representativeness heuristic

judge whether A comes from class B by relying on thesimilarity of A to B.


problems with representativeness heuristic

focuses too much on current evidence, ignores base rate


gambler's fallacy

recent occurrence of an event reduces the perceived probability of that event


availability heuristic

used this when estimating frequency or probability by the ease with which instances or associations could be brought to mind


simulation heuristic

base judgements on how easily you can imagine... ie how things will turn out in the future, and how things would have turned out in different circumstances


conjunction fallacy

occurs when people mistakenly believe that the probability of a conjunction of two events is greater than the probability of one of the events


framing effect

the way that the options are presented influences selection of an option
