L304: Critical Thinking, Decision-Making, and Advocacy - Final Exam

types of questions

Fact, Opinion, Judgement

critical thinking

objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement

types of critical thinking

Meta Cognia, Controlled

Meta Cognia

thinking about thinking

types of Controlled Critical Thinking

System 1 - pre-conscious, System 2 - conscious

System 1 Critical Thinking

quick, automatic, intuitive thinking which allows us to make quick judgements and decisions based on experience and heuristics that are prone to error - pre-conscious

System 2 Critical Thinking

slow, deliberate, intentional thinking using complex problem solving to make judgements and decisions, involving thorough reflection - conscious

hasty generalization

fallacy of presumption; where an individual reaches a conclusion based on things they have seen a couple of times before, assuming that what’s true in one or a few cases applies to all cases

hindsight bias

subsequent information influences what you had thought before/what you knew originally, creating a tendency to perceive past events as more predictable than they actually were

4 causes of bad decisions

lack of intelligence, bad inputs/decision-making, cognitive/motivational biases, interpersonal/organizational impediments

Elements of Thinking in the Critical Thinking Model

Purpose/Goal, Question/Issue, Assumptions, Information/Data/Evidence, Reasoning, Conclusion/Implications, Alternatives

Standards to evaluate the Critical Thinking Model

clarity, accuracy, relevance/importance, sufficiency

types of information

primary, secondary

primary information

personal collection of information & recollection, involving perception and memory

secondary information

research & collection of outside information, involving bias and credibility

expectation effect

we perceive what we expect to see

confirmation bias

tendency to seek information that confirms one’s existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence

self-serving bias

when you see/perceive what you want to see, especially when it’s favorable to yourself

hostile media effect

perceive news/media as biased even if it’s neutral, protecting one’s opinions/worldview

contrast effect

perceptual bias, where the evaluation of a stimulus is influenced by comparison with other stimuli, making differences appear more pronounced than they actually are

halo effect

cognitive bias where a positive impression of one trait or quality of a person, product, or brand influences perceptions of unrelated traits, often leading to overly favorable judgements

memory vs time

as it passes, memories aren’t as strong - physiological issue

memory vs subsequent information

prior events skew what we remember today

memory vs hindsight bias

tendency to view what already happened as more predictable than it actually was

memory vs words

subsequent phrasing/wording changes what you remember

repressed memory

when you ask questions towards a person it can lead them to “remember” a memory that didn’t necessarily happen

present circumstances

we remember things based on our views in the present

blameworthiness

one’s perception of someone’s moral evaluation can affect the recollection of what we remember about them

credibility

assessing source to what extent at which we evaluate information

types of numerical data

raw & summary statistics

response bias

issue with information collection for research in which participants tend to provide inaccurate or misleading answers to questions or assessments

nonresponse bias

issue with information collection for research in which individuals who don’t participate in a study differ systematically from those who do, leading to a sample that is not representative of the whole population

pseudo-opinions

survey responses given to topics that respondents are unfamiliar with, affecting responses and overall research findings

questions shaping how to evaluate numerical data

Who counted and why? What did they count? How did they count?

heuristics

mental shortcut your brain uses to process information

substitution

heuristic where we substitute easier questions in place of harder ones in order to answer the harder question

intensity matching

adjusting units of the original question through the use of an underlying scale of intensity to make comparisons across unrelated categories

availability heuristic

the easier it is to recall instances of a situation to mind, the more common we think it is - ease of calling things to mind

representative heuristic

when we think when an individual represents as a stereotype represents the probability, they are to be a certain stereotype

base rate fallacy

when people ignore general statistical information (base rates) and focus too heavily on specific case details, leading to biased or incorrect judgements

stereotyping

representative heuristic - judging people by the category we put them in

conjunction fallacy

when we add more things to a description or definition, we think it has to be more likely when logically and mathematically that cannot be true

random fallacy - misperception of randomness

random events influence future outcomes (random streak vs expected value)

gamblers fallacy

mistaken belief that past random events influence the likelihood of future independent events - independent trials are self-correcting

anchoring heuristic

individuals rely heavily on the first piece of information when making decisions or estimates; the order in which you perceive things has an affect on how you later see things, skewing judgement

informal fallacies

a form of argument that can mislead even though it’s not necessarily logically invalid

logical fallacies

an error in reasoning that undermines the validity of an argument; things that appear to be syllogisms but aren’t logically valid

fallacies of relevance

the premises aren’t logically relevant to the conclusion - one doesn’t support the other

ad hominem fallacy

an irrelevant conclusion focusing on the character/motives of the person making the argument instead of refuting the actual argument - attack of character

circumstantial ad hominem fallacy

the belief that a person supports a position because of their personal interests

inconsistency ad hominem

belief that since someone changed their mind, their argument is invalid

tu quoque ad hominem fallacy

claiming hypocrisy

genetic fallacy

rejecting argument because of its origin

straw man fallacy

misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack

slippery slope straw man fallacy

taking an argument/premise to an extreme unrealistic conclusion to discredit it

red herring

introducing an irrelevant issue to distract from the real argument

argument to the club

using threats and intimidation instead of reasoning

ad populum - argument of popularity

something is true because many people believe it

bandwagon fallacy

everyone is doing it so you should too

appeal to tradition

something is correct because society has always done it/believed in it

appeal to emotion

emotion is used as justification for conclusion

argument from authority

expert x says that a is true therefore a is true

sunk cost fallacy

basing a decision on past investment rather than present or future value

fallacies of ambiguity

when an argument relies on words or phrases that have multiple meanings, leading to misleading/invalid conclusions

equivocation

using the same word to mean different things within different parts of your argument

amphiboly

ambiguity caused by faulty structure; the pronoun is unclear to what it refers to, problematic punctuation

fallacy of accent

changing meaning depending on emphasis/selective quoting

division of composition

logical error in assuming that what is true of a whole must be also true of its parts

fallacy of presumption

when an argument relies on an assumption that is unproven, implausible, or taken for granted, making the reasoning unsupported

false alternative/bifurcation

only offering 2 options when more exist

loaded question

embedding an assumption in a question making it complex/harder to refute or answer

types of logical reasoning

deductive and inductive

deductive reasoning

logical process where conclusions are necessarily drawn from general principles or premises to conclusions (ex. top down reasoning - if the premise is true, the conclusion must also be true)

inductive reasoning

logical process where conclusions not necessarily are drawn from specific instances or evidence (ex. beginning with specific observations to build up to broader generalizations or theories)

truth

necessary in deductive reasoning; the statement is accurate

validity

necessary in deductive reasoning; the reasoning/argument structure is ok

soundness

necessary in deductive reasoning; all premises are true and the logic is valid

bad reasons fallacy

just because one or more of the premises are false, doesn’t necessarily mean that the conclusion is false (we don’t know whether the conclusion is true or false)

valid deductive forms

categorical syllogism, hypothetical/conditional syllogism, and disjunctive syllogism

categorical syllogism

deductive reasoning consisting of 3 categorical propositions (2 premises and 1 conclusion); major, minor and middle term - the middle term links the major and minor

hypothetical/conditional syllogism

deductive reasoning that follows an “If A, then B” structure, combining major, minor term and conclusion (if ~antecedent~, then ~consequent~)

disjunctive syllogism

deductive reasoning that concludes one premise must be true when an either/or statement is given and one of the options is negated (ex. P or Q, Not P, therefore Q)

probabilistic reasoning

systematically overestimating conjunctive events and underestimating disjunctive events, despite the logical and mathematical evidence

conditional probability

probability changes based on where you are in the process

Bayes Theorem

confusion of the inverse; P(B/A) = P(A/B) / P(A)

causal reasoning

cognitive process of identifying and justifying if 2 factors are correlated and find causation

correlation

the measurement of the strength and direction of a relationship between two variables

causal fallacies

when a cause-and-effect relationship is incorrectly inferred

false causal attribution

causal fallacy assuming that one event caused the other because they are linked, correlated, or occur in sequence, attributing a result to the wrong cause

post hoc ergo propter hoc

causal fallacy when one event follows another, therefore the second event must have been caused by the first one

regression to the mean

if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on its second measurement; as trials increase, they tend to move more towards the mean

fundamental attribution error

causal fallacy where people tend to overemphasize personality traits and underemphasize situational factors when explaining other people’s behavior

expected utility theory

theory in decision-making, E(x) = p(x)*x - flawed belief that people choose higher expected value when making decisions

risk/loss aversion

in declining marginal utility you tend to be risk averse - loss of 100 felt harder than the gain of 100

transitivity

if a is preferred to b, and b is preferred to c, then a is preferred to c

prospect theory

value isn’t based on actual/total value but its value in comparison to reference point

incumbent bias

when those currently holding a position tend to have a higher probability of winning elections compared to their counterparts (aggregate loss and segregated gains)

endowment effect

people value items they own more highly than identical items they don’t own due to loss aversion

status quo bias

the reference point shifts over time - we value things we already have

illusions of favorability

impediment to decision making; we view ourselves as more favorable than we actually are