Comments on: Comments on Cognitive factors underlying paranormal beliefs and experiences

By: Paranormal

Paranormal — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:27:12 +0000

http://www.freepsychicreadingfree.org
Superstition is borm of lack of knowledge, however a few have their roots is good common sense- eg, It’s not a good or safe thing, to walk under ladders

By: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski

Konrad Talmont-Kaminski — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:26:35 +0000

Mark,
Thanks for your observations. I think we should be careful not to get too worked up about the precise terms used. As you point out, the term ‘illusion’ is just as prone to being used to refer to something which is thought of as a straight-forward error as is the term ‘bias’. In using the terms I was simply trying to give names to different views of superstition – one which see it merely in terms of it being a failure of (perfectible) reason and one, the one I favour, trying to explain it in terms of being an erroneous byproduct of a generally effective cognitive strategy/heuristic. Also, as I pointed out, the language of biases and illusions is the accepted one for discussing the difference between the views of Kahnemann and those of Gigerenzer – the psychological context where this issue is very much raised.
Unlike you, I do not think that the normativity of rationality is social in origin. I think that it is the fact that the world we live in is capable of affecting us in ways which we do not understand – but which we may come to understand – that lies at the foundation of rational norms. As you point out, the concept of objective reality – which I assume in my explanation – is controversial. However – as a good colleague always keeps telling me – we must keep an open mind but not so open that our brains fall out. So, I do not take the sceptical arguments so seriously as to doubt the existence of an objective reality. I do take them seriously enough to think that they do show that we do not yet properly understand what that objective reality is. In other words, the sceptical arguments do not show that we can not achieve anything by our epistemic endeavours but that we must keep trying.
Given the view I take, I do not see normativity in terms of specific norms but, rather, in terms of a constant pressure that our environment exerts upon us. Seeing cognition very much in a developmental context, both on the individual and the evolutionary scale, the great amount of similarity in the strategies/heuristics we do individually employ (again, the Kahnemann/Gigerenzer material is to be recommended in this context) is to be explained in terms of the similarities in the environments faced by us and the resources we bring to bear upon the problems we deal with. In that way, whatever statistical ‘averages’ result are the end product of those factors and, in some way, reflective of them. For that reason it is quite fascinating to find that the statistical ‘norm’ for people is to be superstitious!

By: Mark Williams

Mark Williams — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:55:31 +0000

Having read this post, I cannot claim to know the French & Wilson article yet. I can’t even claim to have even the most vague knowledge of the relevant philosophical background, so in practical terms, all of this is rendered rather impotent. There’s a high probability that I’m about to embarrass myself, but as I’m interested in this and don’t mind being proven wrong, I’m writing the following :

To me, the term ‘cognitive biases’ reflects the role which individual experience and belief occupies in reasoning and cognition. In statistical terms, abnormal refers to a score which is significantly different from the average – it does imply a value system of sorts. Norms are established through averaging a concept across a wide enough population.

It does not follow, however, that biases must reflect a deviation from an idealised state. I personally think this belief reflects societal values more than it does any concept with the term itself. ‘Norms’ are simply concepts which society has labelled. There lies no further significance to the term than that forced upon it by society. Certainly there are states or traits which are statistically more prevalent within the population, however, there are equally those traits for which there can be no statistical mean. This does not mean that individuals in these cases are not biased. They simply hold differing biases to each other.

Rather than describing a norm, I believe ‘cognitive biases’ to be descriptive of the mechanisms through which our perceptions of reality are endogenously manipulated. We may conform to generic models of processing, but as individuals, every experience changes us. We all approach problems with different heuristics, each specifically determined as a result of our individual experience with the environment – our learned behaviour and genetics. In this sense, we approach problem solving with a belief which is at least partially predetermined, ie: we relate our knowledge to the specific circumstances in consideration. My issue is essentially that approaching a task with a bias based upon our individuality cannot imply a prerequisite ‘norm’.

Equally, there is also an argument to be made, that the term ‘cognitive illusions’ might imply deviation from a cognitive truth. If an illusory state exists, then would the illusion not be masking a reality? This term would seem to be suggesting an objective truth which, if inoculated against the illusion, one may perceive.

I may well be a psychologist with little philosophical sense, but I know that the concept of an objective truth or reality is controversial.