An Interactionist Approach to Cognitive Debiasing

Bland, Steven

doi:10.1017/epi.2020.9

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the crisis has precipitated a 'credibility revolution' (Vazire 2018) whose inside strategies generally focus on promoting reliabilist virtues, and whose outside (inside-out; outside-in) strategies generally focus on promoting responsibilist virtues. I make this argument in greater detail in (Bland 2020). 17 The Delphi method requires group members to submit anonymous judgements, in the form of probability estimates, in a series of rounds, between which members can freely deliberate, until a consensus is achieved.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fake News, Conspiracy Theorizing, and Intellectual Vice

Meyer¹,

Alfano²

2022

Social Virtue Epistemology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This collection of 19 chapters, all appearing in print here for the first time and written by an international team of established and emerging scholars, explores the place of intellectual virtues and vices in a social world. Relevant virtues include open-mindedness, curiosity, intellectual courage, diligence in inquiry, and the like. Relevant vices include dogmatism, need for immediate certainty, and gullibility and the like.The chapters are divided into four key sections: Foundational Issues; Individual Virtues; Collective Virtues; and Methods and Measurements. And the chapters explore the most salient questions in these areas of research, including: How are individual intellectual virtues and vices affected by their social contexts? Does being in touch with other openminded people make us more open-minded? Conversely, does connection to other dogmatic people make us more dogmatic? Can groups possess virtues and vices distinct from those of their members? For instance, could a group of dogmatic individuals operate in an open-minded way despite the vices of its members?Each chapter receives commentary from two other authors in the volume, and each original author then replies to these commentaries. Together, the authors form part of a collective conversation about how we can know about what we know. In so doing, they not only theorize but enact social virtue epistemology.

show abstract

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kilhlstrom (2013) calls this the doctrine of reciprocal determinism. Reciprocal determinism requires that we recognize the possibility of hybrid strategies that are neither strictly inside nor outside (Bland 2020). We can improve the way people think by designing environments that foster epistemic virtues; this is an outside-in approach.…”

Section: Interactionismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fake News, Conspiracy Theorizing, and Intellectual Vice

Meyer¹,

Alfano²

2022

Social Virtue Epistemology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Esta independencia permitiría que las estrategias no riñan entre sí y puedan ser efectivas. Pero, como hemos visto, los factores individuales y estructurales no sin independientes de esa manera y, por lo tanto, las estrategias deben ser híbridas (Bland, 2020).…”

Section: Los Enfoques Individualista Y Estructuralistaunclassified

Jueces e injusticias epistémicas

Brasi

2023

Rev. Bras. Dir. Proc. Penal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Las injusticias epistémicas causan un mal a alguien en su condición de sujeto epistémico; es decir, como sujeto que participa en la producción, mantención y transmisión de bienes epistémicos. Asumiendo que una de las metas, pero no ciertamente la única, del sistema judicial es promover decisiones que sean razonablemente plausibles, las injusticias epistémicas interfieren con dicha meta. Un objetivo de este artículo es ofrecer un par de recomendaciones institucionales que contribuyen a disminuir las injusticias epistémicas que los jueces pudieran cometer. Estas recomendaciones se basan en data empírica proveniente de las ciencias sociales. Otro objetivo es argumentar, en parte en base a esas intervenciones, que ni el enfoque individualista ni el estructuralista, que ubican el problema y los cambios necesarios para remediarlo en la mente del individuo o las estructuras de nuestro entorno (respectivamente), son adecuadamente concebidos. En particular, el artículo responde a la pregunta: ¿qué tipo de intervenciones, dada la data empírica disponible, es más probable que sea eficiente?, mostrando que esas intervenciones son híbridas, combinando lo individual y lo estructural, dada la interdependencia de lo individual y lo estructural, y ofreciendo dos ejemplos ilustrativos de distintas estrategias de este tipo de intervenciones.

show abstract

“…Such training programs should draw on at least three perspectives on potential bias sources: virtue theory (biases can be controlled by e.g. rising epistemic/intellectual humility or self-vigilance attitude), epistemic paternalist theory (biases can be controlled by “identifying and manipulating the situational factors that bias our cognition”) and collectivist theory (biases can be controlled by a collective, social discussion) (Bland, 2020 ). Competencies control .…”

Section: How To Improve Expert Judgments On Autismmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Minimize the Impact of Experts’ Non-rational Beliefs on Their Judgments on Autism

Wodziński

Rządeczka

Moskalewicz

2022

Community Ment Health J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The non-autistic majority often judges people on the autism spectrum through the prism of numerous stereotypes, prejudices, cognitive biases, or, generally speaking, non-rational beliefs. This causes problems in autistic people’s everyday lives, as they often feel stigmatized, marginalized, and they internalize deficit-laden narratives about themselves. Unfortunately, experts, including health or law professionals, are not entirely immune to these non-rational beliefs, which affect their decision-making processes. This primarily happens when a mix of background knowledge, overconfidence, and haste co-occur. The resulting decisions may impact autistic people, e.g., by determining eligibility for the state’s therapeutical and financial support. This paper shows how simplified reasoning and inference may influence experts’ (medical examiners or court expert witnesses) decision-making processes concerning autistic people. It also proposes particular clues and strategies that could help experts cope with this risk and avoid making biased decisions.

show abstract

An Interactionist Approach to Cognitive Debiasing

Cited by 7 publications

References 81 publications

Fake News, Conspiracy Theorizing, and Intellectual Vice

Fake News, Conspiracy Theorizing, and Intellectual Vice

Jueces e injusticias epistémicas

How to Minimize the Impact of Experts’ Non-rational Beliefs on Their Judgments on Autism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About