Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:00:50.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reasoning is for thinking, not just for arguing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2011

Jonathan St. B. T. Evans
Jonathan St. B. T. Evans
Affiliation:
Centre for Thinking and Language, School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA, United Kingdom. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is indeed extensive evidence that people perform fairly poorly in reasoning tasks and that they often construct arguments for intuitively cued responses. Mercier & Sperber (M&S) may also be right to claim that reasoning evolved primarily as argumentation. However, if it did, the facility became exapted to the function of supporting uniquely human abilities for reflective thinking and consequential decision making.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 77 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Baron, J. (1994) Nonconsequentialist decisions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17:1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F. & van Baaren, R. B. (2006b) On making the right choice: The deliberation-without-attention effect. Science 311(5763):1005–1007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007) Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgment. Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59:255–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2010) Thinking twice: Two minds in one brain. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Ball, L. J. (2010) Do people reason on the Wason selection task? A new look at the data of Ball et al. (2003). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63:434–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Over, D. E. (1996) Rationality and reasoning. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Wason, P. C. (1976) Rationalisation in a reasoning task. British Journal of Psychology 63:205–12.Google Scholar
Frederick, S. (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(4):25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2007) Gut feelings. Penguin.Google Scholar
Gladwell, M. (2005) Blink. Penguin.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2002) Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgement. In: Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, ed. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D., pp. 49–81. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1999) Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2004) The robot's rebellion: Finding meaning the age of Darwin. Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2009) What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2010) Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (2003) Evolutionary versus instrumental goals: How evolutionary psychology misconceives human rationality. In: Evolution and the psychology of thinking, ed. Over, D. E., pp. 171–230. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. & Evans, J. St. B. T. (1975) Dual processes in reasoning? Cognition 3:141–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar