Content-blind norms, no norms, or good norms? A reply to Vranas

@article{Gigerenzer2001ContentblindNN,
  title={Content-blind norms, no norms, or good norms? A reply to Vranas},
  author={Gerd Gigerenzer},
  journal={Cognition},
  year={2001},
  volume={81},
  pages={93-103}
}
In the psychology of thinking, little thought is given to what constitutes good thinking. Instead, normative solutions to problems have been accepted at face value, thereby determining what counts as a reasoning fallacy. I applaud Vranas (Cognition 76 (2000) 179) for thinking seriously about norms. I do, however, disagree with his attempt to provide post hoc justifications for supposed reasoning fallacies in terms of 'content-neutral' norms. Norms need to be constructed for a specific situation… CONTINUE READING

From This Paper

Topics from this paper.

References

Publications referenced by this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 27 references

The dependence of the conjunction fallacy on subtle linguistic factors

  • K. Fiedler
  • Psychological Research,
  • 1988
Highly Influential
4 Excerpts

Explaining and simulating judgment biases as an aggregation phenomenon in probabilistic, multiple-cue environments

  • K. Fiedler
  • Psychological Review,
  • 1996
Highly Influential
3 Excerpts

Causal schemata in judgments under uncertainty

  • A. Tversky, D. Kahneman
  • Progress in social psychology (Vol
  • 1980
Highly Influential
1 Excerpt

Similar Papers

Loading similar papers…