Skip to main content

Adaptive Rationality and Individual Differences

My name is Andrea Polonioli and I am a PhD student in Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh. My primary research interests concern the philosophy of biological and cognitive sciences. The unifying theme of my research is the investigation of rational behavior and cognition.
Andrea Polonioli

Scholars in the field of judgement and decision-making have described a variety of heuristics that reasoners seem to deploy. Yet little attention had been paid to individual differences in the use of these heuristics, until Stanovich and his co-workers conducted a stream of individual differences studies involving reasoning and decision-making (e.g. Stanovich and West 1998; Stanovich 1999; and Stanovich and West, 2011).

They found a remarkable heterogeneity in the use of reasoning strategies and that a sizeable number of people do not deploy heuristics. But they also discovered important correlations between the use of heuristics and measures of cognitive ability. In one of my current projects I explore the implications of research on individual differences for the so-called 'rationality debate'.

In particular, in a paper I published recently, I assess the framework of adaptive rationality (henceforth AR) in light of Stanovich and colleagues' research. AR is a perspective on rational behaviour and cognition recently articulated by Gigerenzer and his colleagues (e.g. Gigerenzer et al. 1999; Todd et al. 2012). An important element of AR is the theory of the 'adaptive toolbox', which describes the psychological adaptations that humans use when making decisions. Yet, on the background of this descriptive view, AR theorists also make some controversial normative claims. Specifically, they argue for a replacement of the so-called 'standard picture of rationality' (Stein 1996: 4) and emphasise that what really matters for the assessment of reasoning strategies is whether they lead to successful behaviour in the real world.

In a series of publications, Stanovich and his co-workers have argued that their reported findings ultimately undermine the AR project (e.g. Stanovich 2011). To examine whether this is really the case, I discuss two arguments that Stanovich seems to offer against AR. First, heterogeneity in the use of heuristics seems to be at odds with the adaptationist background of the AR project. Second, the existence of correlations between cognitive ability and susceptibility to bias suggests that the 'standard picture of rationality' is normatively adequate.

I challenge Stanovich’s criticism of the AR project by showing that none of his arguments are compelling. First, I argue that the actual heterogeneity of reasoning performance is not incompatible with an adaptationist account. It is in fact quite compatible, and perhaps even necessary for some plausible evolutionary stories. Second, it seems that Stanovich has not shown that the 'standard picture of rationality' should be upheld, since compliance with its rules is more common in those who are more intelligent or possess higher cognitive abilities. In particular, I carefully assess the claim that people who score higher in tests of cognitive ability achieve better life outcomes because they do not reason heuristically, and conclude that such a claim is not well supported empirically.

Popular posts from this blog

Delusions in the DSM 5

This post is by Lisa Bortolotti. How has the definition of delusions changed in the DSM 5? Here are some first impressions. In the DSM-IV (Glossary) delusions were defined as follows: Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.

Rationalization: Why your intelligence, vigilance and expertise probably don't protect you

Today's post is by Jonathan Ellis , Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Public Philosophy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Eric Schwitzgebel , Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside. This is the first in a two-part contribution on their paper "Rationalization in Moral and Philosophical thought" in Moral Inferences , eds. J. F. Bonnefon and B. Trémolière (Psychology Press, 2017). We’ve all been there. You’re arguing with someone – about politics, or a policy at work, or about whose turn it is to do the dishes – and they keep finding all kinds of self-serving justifications for their view. When one of their arguments is defeated, rather than rethinking their position they just leap to another argument, then maybe another. They’re rationalizing –coming up with convenient defenses for what they want to believe, rather than responding even-handedly to the points you're making. Yo...

A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind

Today's post is by  Karen Yan (National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University) on her recent paper (co-authored with Chuan-Ya Liao), " A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind " ( Synthese 2023). Karen Yan What drives us to write this paper is our curiosity about what it means when philosophers of mind claim their works are informed by empirical evidence and how to assess this quality of empirically-informedness. Building on Knobe’s (2015) quantitative metaphilosophical analyses of empirically-informed philosophy of mind (EIPM), we investigated further how empirically-informed philosophers rely on empirical research and what metaphilosophical lessons to draw from our empirical results.  We utilize scientometric tools and categorization analysis to provide an empirically reliable description of EIPM. Our methodological novelty lies in integrating the co-citation analysis tool with the conceptual resources from the philosoph...