Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T21:12:19.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rational rationalization and System 2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2020

Wim De Neys Open the ORCID record for Wim De Neys [Opens in a new window]
Wim De Neys*
Affiliation:
LaPsyDE, UMR CNRS 8240 and Université de Paris, Sorbonne, 75005Paris, France. [email protected] www.wdeneys.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this commentary, I highlight the relevance of Cushman's target article for the popular dual-process framework of thinking. I point to the problematic characterization of rationalization in traditional dual-process models and suggest that in line with recent advances, Cushman's rational rationalization account offers a way out of the rationalization paradox.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 43 , 2020 , e34
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

Bago, B. & De Neys, W. (2019) The smart System 1: Evidence for the intuitive nature of correct responding on the bat-and-ball problem. Thinking & Reasoning, 3, 257–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Neys, W. (ed.). (2017) Dual process theory 2.0. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. (2019) Reflections on reflection: the nature and function of Type 2 processes in dual-process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning. (Advance online publication)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. & Wason, P. C. (1976) Rationalization in a reasoning task. British Journal of Psychology 67:479–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8:223–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. (2011a) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2017) The enigma of reason. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, I., Gibb, M. & Thompson, V. A. (2017) Rule-based reasoning is fast and belief-based reasoning can be slow: Challenging current explanations of belief-bias and base-rate neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 43:1154–70.Google ScholarPubMed
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A. & Koehler, D. J. (2015) What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology 80:34–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wason, P. C. & Evans, J. S. B. (1975) Dual processes in reasoning? Cognition 3:141–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar