Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?-Open Peer Commentary-Reversing figure and ground in the rationality debate: An evolutionary perspective

By K. Stanovich, R. F. West, W. DeKay, M. Haselton, Larry Kirkpatrick. 2000

268 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eecc21f0e74619c55af33166874e14303e949545

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Simple Substrates for Complex Cognition (2008, background): “The other, ‘System 2’ in the sense of Kahneman and Frederick (2002) and Stanovich and West (2002), is rule-based, and subject to something more akin to attentional or deliberate control 2 .”
Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues (2007, background): “Later work by Stanovich and West (1998; 2000) suggested that intellectual traits influence decision making and consequential choice preference.”
Misconceptions About Intuition (2010, background): “One important contribution in this respect is the development of System 1/System 2 theories (see Stanovich & West, 2000) claiming that humans process information in parallel, using one system for conscious deliberating and a different system for nonconscious intuiting.”
STATISTICAL COGNITION: TOWARDS EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE IN STATISTICS AND STATISTICS EDUCATION (2008, background): “The heuristics and biases cognitive psychology literature has adopted dual-process theory (Sloman, 1996; Stanovich & West, 2000 ), which identifies two quite different cognitive modes, System 1 (S1) and System 2 (S2), approximately corresponding to the common sense notions of intuitive and analytic”
The dual processes hypothesis in mathematics performance: Beliefs, cognitive reflection, working memory and reasoning (2014, background): “Authors such as Stanovich and West (2000) refer to these dual processes as “System 1” and “System 2” respectively.”
Feedback and the Success of Irrational Investors (2003, unknown): “…but not others is consistent with psychological evidence that suggests that groups of individuals with different personalities, decision styles, education and intelligence are prone to different kinds of or degrees of bias (see, e.g., Stanovich and West (2000), Toplak and Stanovich (2003)).”
Narcissism, confidence, and risk attitude (2004, unknown): “Stanovich and West (2000) related performance on judgment tasks internally to each other and also to other achievement measures, marking relatively new progress in the decision literature.”
Fast, frugal, and rational: How rational norms explain behavior (2003, unknown): “Gigerenzer & Goldstein と同様、手がかり妥当性がトレーニング事例から計算される。 4.2.3 Exemplar-based models ２種類を使用。ニアレスト・ネイバー(Cover & Hart, 1967) GCM(Generalized Context Model)(Nosofsky, 1990)”
Surprisal-Triggered Conditional Computation with Neural Networks (2020, background): “In “Thinking, Fast and Slow”, Daniel Kahneman hypothesizes that human cognition operates in one of two modes: “System 1” cognition, which is fast, automatic, and effortless, and “System 2” cognition, which is slow, deliberate, and effortful [1, 2].”