L304 Final

Critical thinking

Critical thinking

the study of how we acquire & use the information to convince others & make decisions, metacognitive (thinking about thinking), reflective (not intuitive)

System 1 thinking

automatic, quick, intuitive

Statement

sentences/sentence parts that are either true or false

System 2 thinking

conscious, mental

2 types of thinking

pre-conscious & conscious (most business decisions are conscious)

4 reasons people make bad decisions

• lack of intelligence

• bad inputs or decision-making processes (lack of recognition of pre-conscious decision-making)

• cognitive or motivational biases & other issues

• interpersonal/organizational impediments

Hindsight bias

the tendency, upon learning an outcome of an event, to overestimate one's ability to have foreseen the outcome of, you know the outcome & because you know the outcome it affects your knowledge of what happened initially

2 parts to critical thinking

• what are the standards?

• what do we mean by thinking?

Purpose/goal

there's always a purpose behind reasoning, allows you to focus on efficiency, starting point, impacts other things

Question/issue

after identifying question ask if it's the right question, is it relevant, is it sufficient, are there alternatives, is it deep enough, whether it's the right question can be a touchy question

Assumptions

understand what they are, recognize them, make them explicit, what must be true for the conclusion to follow, what are the assumptions, evaluate them, is it an appropriate assumption, is it a good assumption based on the topic, what alternative assumptions can be made, leads to insight

Information/data/evidence

data or evidence you use to support your reasoning, statistics, perceptions, things you're told from others, testimony, premises, do you have sufficient information, what is the missing information is there's a gap, is that information able to be assumed, how did you chose what information to use, don't confuse data with the assumptions you make about the data, consider alternative ways to look at data

Reasoning

how did you use the assumptions & information to arrive at a conclusion, was it methodologically valid, informal fallacies, probabilistically valid, alternative way to think through it

Conclusions/implications

don't confuse the information, how you interpret information, is it clear, responsive to question, alternative conclusions to draw, is it strong, so what, clients care about implications of analysis

Clarity

is your thinking understandable, depends on context, applies to thinking & communication processes

Accuracy

assumptions: consistent with existing information, data: numerical accuracy, reasoning: logical accuracy

Relevance/importance

apply to questions, information, conclusions, relative terms in case of information/assumption/conclusions (are they relevant to question asked)

Sufficiency

includes concepts of depth, breath (should we be considering things similar to this), how much is required to be confident in your answer, depends on who you're talking to, what you're talking about, & what you're trying to get across

Perception

selective, not objective, differs based on expectations/interests

Expectation effect

people see what they expect to see

Self-serving bias

you see what you want to see, hostile media, people believe they're more fair, more confident, more able than the other side, illusion of optimism, cognitive bias in which an individual attributes their successes to internal factors (their own abilities) & their failures to external factors (bad luck, actions of others), can affect how people perceive & evaluate their own performance & can lead to distorted/inaccurate self-assessments

Context dependence

what you see/how you perceive it depends in part on what else is presented with it

Memory

reconstructive (not a camera/taking a picture, you reconstruct what you saw at the time you're asked)

Subsequent information

new info/evidence that emerges after an initial observation/assessment has been made, may confirm contradict or modify the initial observation/assessment, important to consider in order to arrive at accurate conclusion

Credibility

assessment of the source, you decide how much scrutiny is necessary to conduct an analysis, are they committed to truth or are they comfortable with something less than truth, does the source have expertise & reputation for knowledge/fairness/accuracy, how did you come across the source, is the person who's speaking attempting to "preach to the converted"/someone in an academic/professional setting, what is the level of data, how was the data collected, did they tell you the questions/population asked, secondary source (is there a primary source listed, was there a bias in the selection of sources, how does an author deal with disagreeing sources)

Raw data

data that you/someone else observes/counts, survey data

Summary statistics

numbers/collection of numbers that gives you the impression of what the data would show, a number or couple of numbers used to summarize a set of data

Principles of numerical data

the data you use should depend on the question you're asking, is it relevant & sufficient

Definitional issues

was the definition of what they're serving clear or was it misleading, changing definitions

Heuristics

shortcuts to help us process large amounts of info, understand what they are & how we're making them, understand what biases are & what problems can result

Availability heuristic

people tend to estimate frequency & probability based on the ease with which they can recall instances or associations, ease of recall, (people overestimate the number of unethical acts in business because it's so publicized)

Vividness

perceived vividness/emotional intensity of information/experiences, impacts how people evaluate & remember them, vivid information tends to be more salient & memorable than less vivid information which can influence decision-making

Recency

tendency for people to prioritize information that is more recent/recent experiences in their decision-making/evaluation of a situation, can lead to biases & errors in decision-making especially when most recent information is given too much weight/importance

Representative heuritsitc

cognitive bias where individuals make judgments/assumptions about the likelihood of an event based on how closely it resembles a typical example/prototype, people often rely on their mental image of what a typical/representative example of a category/group looks like & uses this mental image to make judgments about new/unfamiliar examples

Base rate fallacy

miss the base rate & make an uninformed/bad decision instead

Conjunction fallacy

as the amount of detail in the problem increases, the probability of the situation decreases, more detail sounds more plausible

Misperception of randomness

tendency for people to see patterns/significance in random/unrelated events, can lead to errors in decision-making & evaluation as many people assign meaning to events that are actually unconnected/insignificant

Gamblers fallacy

independent trials as self-correct even though they don't self-correct

Anchoring heuristic

order of which information is presented can affect our perception of it, earlier information can be more valuable than later information (people anchor to the minimum amount you give the, budget's anchor is last year's budget<

Argument

collection of statements, alleged to be logical reasons why we should believe another statement

Standard form

each premise on a separate line above the divider, divider, conclusion below the divider

Informal fallacy

form of argument that can mislead, not a logical fallacy, not always logically invalid, examine carefully, careful to recognize & use intentionally, just because reasoning is fallacious doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong

Fallacies of relevance

the premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion , non sequitur (doesn't follow), premise isn't logically relevant to the conclusion, argument relies on premises that aren't relevant to the conclusion, characterized by a deliberate attempt to mislead/distract the audience from the actual issue at hand

Missing the point

fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, you have an argument that would support 1 conclusion & you use it to support another conclusion, evidence/premise to show a problem but you're arguing for a particular solution, missing premise, establishing the problem is relevant but not enough to prove the solution is the 1 you should've done, unproven, ("so what" marketing claims, i'm entitled to my opinion which somehow affects whether your opinion is right, something needs to be done therefore this needs to be done)

Ad hominem argument

to the man, you focus on the person making the argument rather than the underlying arguments, not just attacking the person making the argument but doing so in an attempt to argue for or against an underlying argument, questioning the person speaking in an attempt to undermine their argument, can be explicit or subtle, character/motive might be relevant when you're only attacking the person not their argument, allegations of bias might tip you off (issue of motive/character is relevant if the issue is the person's character/credibility)

Circumstantial

when you focus on a person's best interests

Abusive

when you focus on a person's character, attacking the person irrelevant to underlying argument

Attacking inconsistency

not accepting the argument because the person was inconsistent with their argument & their actions

Guilt by association

genetic fallacy, there is a connection, the argument someone is making is connected to a 3rd party & that 3rd party is an unpopular party, you draw the connection but you draw the connection to an unpopular person so you can argue what they've done or what the position is without really addressing the position you just address the connection

Straw person fallacy

arguing against the position that wasn't raised or misstatement or mischaracterization of what was raised, scarecrow, rather than attacking the premise/reasoning itself the object of attack is either an alleged suppressed premise/distortion of the conclusion, misconstruing/misrepresenting an argument made, mischaracterize it to something that is easier to argue against & then you argue against the mischaracterization & the implication is therefore the original argument

Slippery slope argument

you take the premise & extend it to its logical extreme which is clearly a bad thing therefore the premise must be flawed, extend one of the options out to a logical extreme to a point where it's almost impalpable

Red herring argument

don't distort the other party's position you just shift it to a totally irrelevant issue then you argue against the irrelevant issue

Argument to the club

appeal to fear, appeal to force, supporting a conclusion with threats/intimidation, not the same as saying you shouldn't take into account potential negative consequences if those negative consequences are relevant to the issue under consideration, different than threats

Argument from popularity

arguing that the fact that people believe/disbelieve something makes it true/false, just because people believe things doesn't mean it's true, the fact that people believe is not what makes the assertion true, the fact that people believe may be relevant in & of itself independent of whether or not the assertion is true

Bandwagon fallacy

argument that everybody is doing it therefore you should too (advertising, bubbles in financial markets), just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean it's a good idea for you to do it too

Bad reasons fallacy

the reasoning is fallacious, means the reasoning doesn't prove the conclusion, doesn't tell us whether the conclusion is right or wrong, just because one or more of the premises is false doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is false

False alternative fallacy

assuming that all of the provided options are the only options (you must love each other or die)

Genetic fallacy

stereotype based on background/origin

Fallacies of ambiguity

have to do with the language used, often obvious, sometimes humorous, can be quite deceptive, stems from word usage/structure

Fallacies of presumption

refers to errors in reasoning that occur when an argument relies on an unstated/unjustified assumption/presumption, occurs when the conclusion is based on an assumption that hasn't been adequately justified/supported by evidence

Logical fallacy

always logically invalidating, things that appear to be syllogisms in form but that aren't logically valid, affirming the consequent (& its relationship to confirmation bias), issues with conditional & disjunctive syllogisms

Deductive reasoning

conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, typically reasoning from a general premise to specific conclusion, if the premises are true then the conclusion has to be true, deducing a conclusion from the premise, truth vs validity vs soundness

Truth

refers to statements

Validity

refers to reasoning

Soundness

both truth & validity

Categorical syllogims

all As are Bs, if A then B, logical argument that consists of two premises & a conclusion each making a statement about the inclusion/exclusion of categories

Hypothetical syllogism

logical argument that consists of two premises & a conclusion each using a conditional statement, first premise sets up a conditional statement & second presents a second conditional statement that follows the first premise, conclusion presents a new conditional statement that follows the first two premises

Disjunctive syllogism

"or", logical argument that consists of two premises & a conclusion each using a disjunctive statement, first premise presents a disjunctive statement & second premise eliminates one of the options presented in the first premise, conclusion presents the remaining option

Inductive reasoning

conclusion probable not necessary based on premises, typically reasoning from specific premises to a general conclusion

Hasty generalization

generalizing from too few examples/personal experiences. drawing a conclusion from individuals to the group of individuals (TJD is good which means Hood-Schifino must be good; individual to all individuals)

Appeal to tradition

making decisions based on past tradition, using only the past to make conclusions instead of using relevant time & information from today (marriage in California should remain the same because that's how it's always been)

Mob appeal/appeal to emotion

appeal to the masses, argument in which an appeal is made to emotions, especially to powerful feelings that can sway people in large crowds

Argument from authority

an argument based on what experts/presumed experts say to establish the truth, expert X says A is true therefore A is true, experts often get things wrong, can be "studies show, they say" or authority from age

Enthymeme

syllogism in which one of the premises is implicit (what expert X says is correct)

Eugenics

you can breed people to get the qualities & attributes that you want

Sunk cost fallacy

making a decision not based just on the current situation & future prospects but also on how you got there, if you've already spent money how is that relevant to whether or not you should continue, forget about the past (what would I decide if I started today), troops dying in battle deciding whether or not you continue the war, stock market (trying to decide whether to sell the stock regardless of whether it's gone up or down) where you started shouldn't matter, just where it's going to go

Equivocation

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

Amphiboly

due to faulty structure, ambiguous reference (pronoun but unclear what it's referring to), adjectives, dangling modifiers, problematic punctuation

Fallacy of accent

emphasize part of a statement (accent of a statement), tone of voice, quoting out of context, based on what you emphasize it means different things, using words in a different sense gives it a different meaning, view the statement in its original context, misleading through accent

Fallacy of division

assuming that a property of a group/class is a property of al individual members of that class

Fallacy of composition

assuming that a property of a member of a class/group is attributable to the entire group/class, when talking about composition you're not drawing a conclusion about the members of the class you're drawing a conclusion about the class itself (composing individuals to talk about the group; individuals to organization)

Fallacy of complex question

imbedding an assumption in the question that's then picked up inadvertently in the answer, loaded question that can skew your answer & make it seem like something you didn't intend

Conditional probability

when you have additional information your assessment should get better, confusion of the inverse

Correlation

mutually/reciprocally related, direct/inverse, not causation, always ask what's in the other boxes, if two items are correlated there are several relationships, want all four boxes

Regression to the mean

attributing causation to random occurrences

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

if B follows A then B must have been caused by A

Intransitivity

if A is bigger than B & B is bigger than C then A is bigger than C, doesn't yield a consistent curve

Prospect theory

one dimension you have gains & losses, other dimension you have value, s curve, because there is declining marginal utility in the demand of gains the slope of the gain curve is concave so people often prefer certain gains, opposite is true for negatives, because the slope of the loss curve is steeper than the slope of the gain curve a loss is felt more acutely than a gain of the same size (loss aversion)

Endowment effect

idea that people value things they have much more than thing they don't have

Status quo on bias

position in which you find yourself determines whether you stick with the status quo

Compensatory strategies

lower score on one attribute can be compensated for with another score on another attribute

Linear model

use actual numbers (scaled, dummy variables), weighted attributes, easier

Additive difference model

look at differences, evaluate the relative importance of different factors that contribute to a particular outcome/decision, each factor is evaluated separately & the overall outcome is determined by adding up the scores/weights assigned to each factor

Noncompensatory strategies

looking at each attribute & making a decision not adding them, don't compensate for each other

Conjunctive rule

different attributes joined by "and", have to meet all the requirements

Disjunctive rule

uses "or", look at best attribute for each option & go with whatever is best, most important attribute

Lexicographic rule

which is most important attribute, choose best, hierarchy of best options

Positive illusions

cognitive biases that involve seeing oneself, other people, or the world in a more positive light than is objectively warranted (overestimating one's abilities, underestimating risks & negative outcomes)

Illusion of favorability

cognitive bias in which an individual overestimates the probability of a positive outcome without adequate evidence/justification, can lead to flawed decision-making & overconfidence in one's abilities

Illusion of optimisim

people tend to believe they're more likely than others to experience positive & less likely to experience negative