The Psychology of Judgement and Solution - Essay Example

? Comparison between Gigerenzers and Kahneman and Tversky approach to judgment Comparison between Gigerenzers and Kahneman and Tversky approach to judgment No. of words (2082) Introduction Henri Poincare, a mathematician, pointed out that solving a problem simply means to make a transparent representation of it in order to come up with a clear solution. Riding on the same track, in case a doctor wants to find out the chances that the women that have a positive mammogram screening that have the breast cancer, the doctor may easily arrive to the solution by representing the information in natural frequencies rather than representing information in conditional probabilities, according to Gigerenzer. In this essay, Gigerenzer’s way of approach to the judgment is basically compared and contrasted to the way his counter parts, Kahneman and Tversky, approach to judgment (Hardman, & Macchi, 2003). The arguments of both parties concerning their approaches to judgment are taken a very keen look in this essay. One of the differing point between Gigerenzer and Kahneman and Tversky is the probability of the cause of the problem incurs from the observed effect, termed as Bayesian inference problems. It has become an established fact that people give a lot of concentration to base problems of the same type. This was known as conservatism, which was a misconception. Kahneman and Tversky disagreed with this in the 1970s and 1980s, claiming that people do not really concentrate on such problems or rather people give very less concentration to such problems. Kahneman and Tversky used the same explanations and facts in their argument. They used the process of error inside the mind. Later, the intuitive Bayesian reasoning took a new root or line of reasoning, especially of the angle of ecological. On the other hand, Gigerenzer argued that an individual could also facilitate reasoning from the outside by simply having changed the representation of the external from probabilities, frequencies especially normalized or relative frequencies to natural frequencies (Heffernan, 2005). The ecological view argued above, has thus helped so many individuals to reason in the Bayesian way. It has become very important in several fields such as the medicine field and the law fields for making good judgments. Especially in the field of medicine, the diagnostic inferences of the physicians have considerably improved since the applications of use of natural frequencies, which replaced the probabilities. On the other hand, in the criminal law, based on the understanding of the DNA match, judges and other various law experts are able to improve the DNA match using the natural frequencies instead of using the probabilities. However, very few legal experts sided with verdict that turned out, according to the results, guilty presented in the statistical information resulting from natural frequencies. Holding of training programs especially to train the participants on how to translate the probabilities to natural frequencies and how they yield ling term effects on especially their capability to train other individuals on how to face and tackle issues emanating from probabilities. Not all the experts undergo training on the use of the natural frequencies, they only base on the conditional probabilities and the percentage to represent their arguments and thus coming up with a proper decision that makes a difference in a patient’s life, transforming their lives to either disparity or hope or even life or death (Heffernan, 2005). There are other facts where Gigerenzer do not agree with Kahneman and Tversky. These instances include, first, the empirical level where Gigerenzer is against the claims of Kahneman and Tversky whereby he questions the biases identified by the two claiming the biases are unstable. He continues to give strength to his point of instability by claiming that when asking several questions concerning their biasness, especially in line with natural frequencies rather than probabilities. Secondly, they disagree on the methodological level, Gigerenzer argues that the methods used by Kahneman and Tversky in their heuristics result from vague formulation thus a term known as representativeness , which is the appeal to the heuristics as generators of biases have got less explanatory power and thus less efficient (Hardman, & Macchi, 2003). Gigerenzer, instead, proposes on the increase of the emphasis on the investigation of the cognitive processes which are under judgment and which do not involve a lot of certainty. The third issue, which led to the disagreement of Gigerenzer to the approach of Kahneman and Tversky of judgment, concerned the normative level. Gigerenzer argues that it was not proper to accord some of the characteristics of biasness identified by the two theorists, as errors or fallacies. They may also not be upheld because of the reasons given by the frequentists which include the following reasons, which include, one, they do not need to base on norms in cases where there is a single case probabilities which make sense, such norms may not be as efficient and may contradict with the conversational norms. Another reason is that the experts that support natural frequencies argue that there are no norms appropriate for a single judgment since single case probabilities make less meaning (Heffernan, 2005). The last reason is that the presence of contradicting statistical norms which are present in some places. The disagreement of Gigerenzer and Kahneman and Tversky on empirical seems to be much smaller according to the viewers, which turns out not true. Therefore, this essay addresses these issues at a deeper angle. Kahneman and Tversky criticism include some of the conceptual arguments the use of the bias. Many people are fond of using the word to mean a dispute or something disputed by the rest of the individuals. In a deeper and a wider level, it becomes one of the reasons that Gigerenzer forbids the use of the term bias. He argues that the two theorists, Kahneman and Tversky may compare the performances of the participants especially during their experiments to inappropriate norms. Judgments made under the conditions of practical significance turns out to be right. Judgments as a topic do not only entail the relevant process of cognitive activities but also it is inclusive of remedies for its improvisation of judgments and improving the norms. The existence of the norms deserves a thorough investigation to ensure that they surely exist and practiced properly. These issues require more of the empirical conceptual address rather than the normative conceptual address (Sternberg, & Sternberg, 2010). Following the argument of Gigerenzer, he supposes that it is not right to use a single case proposition to conclude or to make a judgment on an individual or an event and a single judgment to express a person’s single case proposition. He continues to argue that probabilities cannot apply sensibly to a single case proposition (Sternberg, & Sternberg, 2010). This is the point of which Kahneman and Tversky raised arguments concerning the position of Gigerenzer in the position of normative agnosticism. On other hand, Gigerenzer viewed this position at a personal communication and he did not deny the fact that norms appropriate for single case judgments exist but he suggests that the fact that frequentism has widely spread raises the burden of proof to those individuals who claim that they exist. In the case of the norms, appropriate without the subjectivist probabilities, it turns out to the contrary that people believe in currently (Heffernan, 2005). In a situation where the application of subjective probabilities are not meaningful and especially to a single case proposition since the subjective concept of probabilities is challenging and has many problems. It does not mean that norms appropriate for single case judgment do not exist. Kahneman and Tversky argue that an individual can still conclude that it is impossible for one to be in both proposition and in opposition at the same time. It is also possible that for the single case judgment to exist even in the absence of single case probabilities. Arguments on the existence of the appropriate norms have taken root. In this part, Gigerenzer though gives wrong arguments on the existence appropriate norms, he is still right to when he argues that the existence of such norms and the nature of such norms depicts that the heuristics have uncritically assumed the biasness of literature (Sternberg, & Sternberg, 2010). The following two reasons try to justify Gigerenzer’s opinions. These two justifications include the norms of probabilities and the extra-statistical calibration norm. These specify the degree of probability axioms. Another argument arises concerning the existence of statistical norms. Gigerenzer and Murray base their arguments on the same line; the participants in the experiments of psychology perform very poorly. This thus concludes that the reasoning of a normal man out in the streets is irrational and biased. The inference of the poor performance in the in the context of the real world and the context of the real world experiments is not immediate. This goes in line with Gigerenzer’s argument where he suggests that an individual should never apply norms in a mechanical fashion but instead the individual should check whether the content of the situation of each of the real world deserves such application (Heffernan, 2005). At the same time, an individual should bear in mind to carry out comparison between the real world contexts experiments with the real world contexts in order to come up with a good representation of the situation of biasness in the experiment. These also helps to determine whether the biasness identified by the two theorists, Kahneman and Tversky, lie under the category of fallacies or errors especially given the fact that the experiments carried out are more accurate. For example carrying out an experiment of sampling randomly and thus the arguments of Gigerenzer provide enough evidence by themselves, in other words the arguments are self-explanatory and direct to the point and especially concerning the appropriateness of statistical norms in the contexts of experiments. Similarly, to the both Gigerenzer’s approach to judgment and the approach of Kahneman and Tversky, claim that the probabilities representation has to introduce the need for computation. Through observation of some samples and the keen monitoring of frequencies, Bayesian inferences of natural performance and understanding of frequencies becomes a success. In order to come up with the correct answer to this theory of Bayesian, the reliability of the witnesses becomes very necessary to assume in the conditions of testing and the prevailing conditions of the accident (Sternberg, & Sternberg, 2010). Different theories provide different answers to the questions of Kahneman and Tversky on how the witnesses should behave on the night of the occurrence of the accident, similarly, to Gigerenzers’ questions on the same. Kahneman and Tversky suggested that the major challenge that faces the reality of cognitive illusion results from a very slight change in its setup especially slight changes in particular frequencies and their representations and judgments, which makes the cognitive illusions to disappear largely. However, this same perception of Kahneman and Tversky misses the main point since it concentrates largely on the defects hence denying concentration on the occurrence of the main theory (Hardman, & Macchi, 2003). Neither the inside nor the outside views can explain the time the frequencies have the effective judgments or not thus facilitating Bayesian reasoning while others do not facilitate Bayesian reasoning. Eventually, Tahneman and Tversky have the belief that the appropriate answer to many individuals questions concerning the frequencies is that even the frequency judgment is also prone to failure. Conclusion In summation, every question that arises from Kahneman and Tversky concerning the heuristics and bias program has led to the rising of a tremendous effect especially on the research. So many researchers are based on research to find out the correct information on judgment. Although the procedure of the studies keeps on changing from time to time, people still keep up their research techniques. Large collections of empirical results, mainly results ranging from different studies, though still mysteriously, confuse a lot when arranging. Psychology of judgment aims at making individuals to understand how human beings reason in other given circumstances (Hardman, & Macchi, 2003). Some heuristics are plausible in that it tries to explain everything and at the same time gives nothing. Therefore, Psychology of judgment enables individuals to tackle problems and come up with fair judgments to the individuals affected. It is also very important especially in the medical and criminal chambers where they exercise and make judgmental decisions on several matters in their every day lives. The study and research of psychology of judgment calls for greater demand to improve and to attain efficiency in the field of judgment hence it needs to be encouraged. References Hardman, D., & Macchi, L. (2003). Thinking: Psychological perspectives on reasoning, judgment and decision making. Chichester, West Sussex, England: J. Wiley. Heffernan, T. M. (2005). A student's guide to studying psychology. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2010). The psychologist's companion: A guide to writing scientific papers for students and researchers. New York: Cambridge University Press. Read More