Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:43:47.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Letting rationalizations out of the box

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2020

Philip Pärnamets Open the ORCID record for Philip Pärnamets [Opens in a new window] ,
Petter Johansson  and
Lars Hall
Philip Pärnamets
Affiliation:
Faculty of Philosophy, New York University, New York, NY10003. [email protected]://philipparnamets.github.io Division of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden
Petter Johansson
Affiliation:
Lund University Cognitive Science, Lund University, S-221 00, Lund, Sweden. [email protected]://www.lucs.lu.se/choice-blindness-group/[email protected]://www.lucs.lu.se/choice-blindness-group/
Lars Hall
Affiliation:
Lund University Cognitive Science, Lund University, S-221 00, Lund, Sweden. [email protected]://www.lucs.lu.se/choice-blindness-group/[email protected]://www.lucs.lu.se/choice-blindness-group/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We are very happy that someone has finally tried to make sense of rationalization. But we are worried about the representational structure assumed by Cushman, particularly the “boxology” belief-desire model depicting the rational planner, and it seems to us he fails to accommodate many of the interpersonal aspects of representational exchange.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 43 , 2020 , e41
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bicchieri, C. (2005) The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, F. (2013) Action, outcome, and value: A dual-system framework for morality. Personality and Social Psychology Review 17(3):273–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dennett, D. C. (1991a) Consciousness explained. Penguin.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1991b) Real patterns. The Journal of Philosophy 88(1):27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1991c) Two contrasts: Folk craft versus folk science, and belief versus opinion. In: The future of folk psychology: Intentionality and cognitive science, ed. Greenwood, J. D., pp. 135–48. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1996) Kinds of minds: Toward an understanding of consciousness. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L. (2007) Why Heideggerian AI failed and how fixing it would require making it more Heideggerian. Philosophical Psychology 20(2):247–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, W. J. (1997) Nonlinear neurodynamics of intentionality. Journal of Mind and Behavior 18(2/3):291–304.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108(4):814–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, L., Johansson, P. & Strandberg, T. (2012) Lifting the veil of morality: Choice blindness and attitude reversals on a self-transforming survey. PLOS ONE 7(9):e45457. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, L., Strandberg, T., Pärnamets, P., Lind, A., Tärning, B. & Johansson, P. (2013) How the polls can be both spot on and dead wrong: Using choice blindness to shift political attitudes and voter intentions. PLOS ONE 8(4):e60554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johansson, P., Hall, L., Sikström, S. & Olsson, A. (2005) Failure to detect mismatches between intention and outcome in a simple decision task. Science 310(5745):116–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, P., Hall, L., Tärning, B., Sikström, S. & Chater, N. (2014) Choice blindness and preference change: You will like this paper better if you (believe you) chose to read it! Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 27(3):281–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1969/2008) Convention: A philosophical study. Wiley. (Original work published in 1969)Google Scholar
Luo, J. & Yu, R. (2017) The spreading of alternatives: Is it the perceived choice or actual choice that changes our preference? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 30(2):484–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2):57–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rawls, J. (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard university press.Google Scholar
Strandberg, T., Sivén, D., Hall, L., Johansson, P. & Pärnamets, P. (2018) False beliefs and confabulation can lead to lasting changes in political attitudes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 147(9):1382–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. (1992) The psychological foundations of culture. In: The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, ed. Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J., pp. 19–136. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. (2000) The elements of a scientific theory of self-deception. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 907(1):114–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Von Uexküll, J. (1934/2010) A foray into the worlds of animals and humans: With a theory of meaning. University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published in 1934)Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2009) Philosophical investigations. Wiley. (Original work published in 1953)Google Scholar
Brooks, R. A. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence 47(1–3):139–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar