Rationality and the Reflective Mind

By K. Stanovich. 2010

716 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9e4d9c2ead3b3036c927fd153da500452abeea36

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Philosophy

Citations in the corpus

Questions and challenges for the new psychology of reasoning (2012, background): “That is, it is a form of reasoning that high-ability participants might engage in when suitably instructed and motivated to make deductive effort (Evans, 2007a; Stanovich, 2011b).”
Reasoning to and from belief: Deduction and induction are still distinct (2013, background): “For sure, some people can reason deductively from assumed premises, mostly those high in cognitive ability (Stanovich, 2011).”
Reflections on reflection: the nature and function of type 2 processes in dual-process theories of reasoning (2019, methodology): “We also have to explain why people engage in so much reasoning to so little effect, which does not appear compatible with the cognitive miser hypothesis (Stanovich, 2011).”
The Politically Motivated Reasoning Paradigm, Part 1: What Politically Motivated Reasoning Is and How to Measure It (2016, background): “In Bayesian terms, he is deriving the likelihood ratio for the report from his priors (Stanovich, 2011).”
The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks (2011, background): “Research has shown that there does appear to be reliable variance in rational thinking over and above what can be predicted by cognitive ability (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007; Finucane & Gullion, 2010; Stanovich, 2011).”
Dual process theory 2.0 (2020, background): “For example, people can acquire some biased “mindware” (Stanovich, 2011), such as a racist ideology, that they employ in Type 2 processing.”
Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test (2014, background): “…should be noted that the CRT had its largest correlations with the two tasks (belief bias and denominator neglect) that, according to our taxonomy (Stanovich, 2011; Stanovich, West, & Toplak, 2011), are the two tasks in the current battery that most closely represent the rational thinking…”
Dynamic inference and everyday conditional reasoning in the new paradigm (2013, background): “…the new paradigm about the need for a probabilistic account of human inference, most of this work proceeds at the computational level (Douven & Verbrugge, 2013; Gilio & Over, 2012; Pfeifer & Kleiter, 2010; Over et al., 2010) or at the level of cognitive architecture (Evans, 2007; Stanovich, 2011).”
Dual Process Theories in Behavioral Economics and Neuroeconomics: a Critical Review (2019, methodology): “14 Stanovich (2011) uses psychometric data to make a compelling case for the role of the algorithmic stage in Type 2 processing (even if it’s not clear what underwrite those processes).”
Myside Bias, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence (2013, background): “These major components of rational thought have all been operationalized in the empirical literature of cognitive science (Stanovich, 2011).”
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit (2015, neutral): “A crucial finding that has emerged from the dual-process literature is that the ability to reason involves a discretionary aspect (Stanovich, 2011; Stanovich &West, 2000); a distinction that has long historical precedent (Baron, 1985).”
Practitioner review: do performance-based measures and ratings of executive function assess the same construct? (2013, neutral): “…for the lack of convergence displayed by the performance-based and behavior rating measures involves positing that these measures are actually tapping different cognitive levels— speciﬁcally, what Stanovich (2009b, 2011) terms the difference between the algorithmic and the reﬂective mind.”
The Microfoundations Movement in Strategy and Organization Theory (2015, background): “For example, individual differences in biases provide a fruitful area of investigation (Stanovich, 2011), where identifying individual differences in certain biases and heuristics can lead to more (or less) optimal decision-making in organizations.”