Social Intuitionism and Dual Reasoning Theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2022iss19pp271-292Keywords:
intuition, emotion, reason, judgment, moralAbstract
In this work the social intuitionism defended by Jonathan Haidt is explored and compared with the dual reasoning theory (TDR), this theory belongs to a family of proposals that maintain that there is a duality in the field of the mental. On the one hand, social intuitionism has argued that it receives support from TDR, on the other hand, TDR has pointed out similarities with social intuitionism; despite the mutual references mentioned, an analysis of what the precise relationship between these projects could be has not been carried out. This work is an attempt to carry out such analysis, in which it is argued that a) it is not clear that the division of social intuitionism between reasoning, intuition, and emotion is equivalent to that of the defenders of TDR; b) social intuitionism has certain differences both with the default-interventionist version and with the parallel version of the TDR; and, finally, c) it is not evident that social intuitionism is an extension of a TDR to the field of moral judgment. It is necessary to carry out more studies that delve into the different elements of social intuitionism and TDR, in order to understand how human beings make judgments and decisions, either within the scope of morality or outside it.
References
Cosmides, L., Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J. (Eds.). The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, pp. 163-228. New York: Oxford University Press.
Evans, J. S. B. (2006). Dual system theories of cognition: Some issues. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 28(28), 202-207.
Evans, J. (2009). How many dual-process theories do we need? One, two, or many? In J. Evans, K. Frankish (eds.), In two minds: Dual process and beyond, pp. 33-54. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0002
Evans, Jonathan (2010). Thinking Twice. Two minds in one brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans, J. (2021). Bounded rationality, Reasoning and Dual Processing. In R. Viale (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Bounded Rationality, pp. 185-195. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315658353
Evans, J., Over, D. (1996). Rationality and Reasoning. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203027677
Evans, J., Stanovich, K. (2013). Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate. Perspective on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
García, J. (2012). Algunas observaciones (de carácter neuroanatómico, filogenético y ontogenético) a la teoría dual de procesamiento. En J. García, J. González, P. Hernández (eds). Las ciencias cognitivas: una constelación en expansión, pp. 159-178. México: CEFPSVLT-SEP.
Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
Haidt, Jonathan. (2012). The Righteous Mind. Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books.
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A. (Eds.) Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, pp. 3-20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nisbett, R., Peng, K., Choi, I., Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.291
Samuels, R., Stich, S., Bishop, M. (2002). Ending the Rationality Wars: How to Make Disputes about Human Rationality Disappear. In R. Elio (Ed.). Common Sense, Reasoning, & Rationality, pp. 236-268. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195147669.003.0011
Samuels, R., Stich, S., Faucher, L. (2004). Reason and rationality. In Niiniluoto, I., Sintonen, M., Wolenski, J., (Eds.), Handbook of Epistemology, pp. 131-179. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sloman, S. (2014). Two systems of reasoning, an update. In J. Sherman, B. Gawronski, Y. Trope (eds.). Dual process theories of the social mind, pp. 69-79. New York: Guilford Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-08812-005
Stanovich, Keith. (2004). The robot’s rebellion: Finding meaning in the age of Darwin. Chicago: Chicago University Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226771199.001.0001
Stanovich, Keith. (2011). Rationality and the reflective mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341140.003.0001
Stanovich, L. (2021). Why humans are cognitive misers and what it means for the great rationality debate. In R. Viale (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Bounded Rationality, pp. 196-206. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315658353
Stanovich, K., Toplak, M. (2012). Defining features versus incidental correlates of Type 1 and Type 2 processing. Mind and Society, 11(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-011-0093-6
Stanovich, K., West, R. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-726. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435
Sturm, T. (2012). The “Rationality Wars” in Psychology: Where They Are and Where They Could Go. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 55(1), 66-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2012.643628
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293
Viale, R. (2021). Why Bounded Rationality? In R. Viale (ed.). Routledge Handbook of Bounded Rationality, pp. 1-54. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315658353
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
