REPORTS 6 STUDIES USING LABORATORY REPLICAS OF THE SITUATION IN WHICH A BEGINNING CLINICIAN OBSERVES THE DIAGNOSTIC TEST PROTOCOLS OF PATIENTS WITH VARIOUS SYMPTOMS IN ORDER TO DISCOVER THE CHARACTERISTICS OF TEST PERFORMANCE THAT DISTINGUISH PATIENTS WITH EACH SYMPTOM. NAIVE UNDERGRADUATES VIEWED A SERIES OF 45 DRAW-A-PERSON TEST DRAWINGS RANDOMLY PAIRED WITH CONTRIVED SYMPTOM STATEMENTS ABOUT THE PATIENTS WHO DREW THEM. SS "REDISCOVERED" THE SAME RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DRAWING CHARACTERISTICS AND SYMPTOMS AS CLINICIANS REPORT OBSERVING IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, ALTHOUGH THESE RELATIONSHIPS (...) WERE ABSENT IN THE EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS. THE REPORTED RELATIONSHIPS CORRESPONDED TO RATED ASSOCIATIVE STRENGTH BETWEEN SYMPTOM AND DRAWING CHARACTERISTIC. (shrink)

Humans and animals make inferences about the world under limited time and knowledge. In contrast, many models of rational inference treat the mind as a Laplacean Demon, equipped with unlimited time, knowledge, and computational might. Following H. Simon's notion of satisficing, the authors have proposed a family of algorithms based on a simple psychological mechanism: one-reason decision making. These fast and frugal algorithms violate fundamental tenets of classical rationality: They neither look up nor integrate all information. By computer simulation, the (...) authors held a competition between the satisficing "Take The Best" algorithm and various "rational" inference procedures. The Take The Best algorithm matched or outperformed all competitors in inferential speed and accuracy. This result is an existence proof that cognitive mechanisms capable of successful performance in the real world do not need to satisfy the classical norms of rational inference. (shrink)

After clarifying the probabilistic conception of causality suggested by Good (1961-2), Suppes (1970), Cartwright (1979), and Skyrms (1980), we prove a sufficient condition for transitivity of causal chains. The bearing of these considerations on the units of selection problem in evolutionary theory and on the Newcomb paradox in decision theory is then discussed.