This paper discusses an experiment in cognitive psychology called the Linda problem. Firstly, some natural conditions for the correctness of the interpretation of psychological experiments (such as the Linda problem) are formulated. The article is essentially a critique of the interpretation of the results of the Linda problem experiment provided by Kahneman and Tversky as well as – indirectly – their concept of heuristics. It is shown that the interpretation provided by Kahneman and Tversky does not meet the aforementioned conditions for correctness. The main argument is justified utilizing such rules of rationality as conditional probability and Grice’s conversational maxims. It is also pointed out that this argument can be reformulated in terms of the intuitive system of reasoning., Tento příspěvek pojednává o experimentu v kognitivní psychologii nazývaném problém Lindy. Za prvé jsou formulovány některé přírodní podmínky pro správnost interpretace psychologických experimentů (jako je problém Lindy). Článek je v podstatě kritikou interpretace výsledků problému Linda, který poskytli Kahneman a Tversky, stejně jako - nepřímo - jejich pojetí heuristiky. Ukazuje se, že výklad poskytnutý Kahnemanem a Tversky nesplňuje výše uvedené podmínky správnosti. Hlavní argument je odůvodněn použitím takových pravidel racionality jako podmíněné pravděpodobnosti a Griceho konverzačních maxim. Rovněž je zdůrazněno, že tento argument lze přeformulovat z hlediska intuitivního systému uvažování., and Adam Olszewski
The article reacts to a critical evaluation of the cognitive revolution which Jaroslav Peregrin has presented (The Cognitive Counterrevolution?, Filosofie dnes, 4, 2012, No. 1, pp. 19-35). According to Peregrin the cognitive revolution has thrown open a Pandora’s box of naive mentalistic theories and variations on Cartesian dualism (“magical theories of the mind”), which “do not belong to science, nor even to sensible philosophy”. Although I agree with the rejection of magical theories of the mind, I attempt to show that the cognitive turn in the 50’s and 60’s of the last century is susceptible of a quite different interpretation, according to which cognitive science, as a result of its basic assumptions and methodology, does not imply or propagate any kind of Cartesian dualism, rather it explicitly denies the possibility of such an account of the relation between mind and body., Juraj Franek., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
The paper aims to integrate the results of several studies on the representation of masculine generics in German into a theoretical framework. Although the results are consistent in showing the male bias of masculine generics, they are based on different experimental procedures and stimulus variations, and that makes the cognitive processes involved hard to compare. Assuming that reading results in the construction of situation models and that gender ‑related memory content is activated through a fast, undirected resonance process it is possible to determine a common cognitive basis. Possible causes of gender ‑related resonance are identified and their influence on situation models is discussed. The theoretical base allows the formulation of general statements on how gender ‑related information influences language processing. Furthermore, it has practical implications for how to implement a gender ‑fair language., Lisa Irmen, Ute Linner ; přeložila Barbora Schnelle., Přeloženo z němčiny, Obsahuje bibliografii, and Anglické resumé
During the last decades several studies in cognitive psychology have shown that many of our actions do not depend on the reasons that we adduce afterwards, when we have to account for them. Our decisions seem to be often influenced by normatively or explanatorily irrelevant features of the environment of which we are not aware, and the reasons we offer for those decisions are a posteriori rationalisations. But exactly what reasons has the psychological research uncovered? In philosophy, a distinction has been commonly made between normative and motivating reasons: normative reasons make an action right, whereas motivating reasons explain our behaviour. Recently, Maria Alvarez has argued that, apart from normative (or justifying) reasons, we should further distinguish between motivating and explanatory reasons. We have, then, three kinds of reasons, and it is not clear which of them have been revealed as the real reasons for our actions by the psychological research. The answer we give to this question will have important implications both for the validity of our classifications of reasons and for our understanding of human action.
Metafora čtyř živlů je pojímána jako metafora popisu osobnosti. Výzkum sleduje to, jakým způsobem lidé takto pojaté metafoře živlů rozumějí, tj. jaké významy s živly spojují na osobnostní rovině a jaká je míra shody v těchto významech. Teoreticky se autor opírá o teorii konceptuální metafory, teorii prototypů a o koncepci folkového modelu. Princip metaforického uvažování je spatřován zejména v metaforické projekci pojmů ze zdrojové oblasti založených na raných prekonceptuálních senzo-motorických zkušenostech do oblasti cílové, kterou představují pojmy abstraktnější povahy. Výzkum osobnostních významů připisovaných jednotlivým živlům a jejich shody byl realizován pomocí sémantického diferenciálu a seznamu osobnostních deskriptorů (rysových adjektiv). Velikost souboru byla 82 respondentů pro sémantický diferenciál a 54 respondentů pro seznam adjektiv. Výsledky ukázaly statisticky významnou shodu v přiřazování živlů u většiny adjektiv. Nejsilněji rozlišovaný byl člověk-oheň, jako silný a aktivní, energický, emotivní a také člověk-země, vnímaný jako rozvážný, rigidní, bezpečný. Menší shoda se ukázala u člověkavody, viděného jako jedince slabého, přizpůsobivého, vnímavého, a u člověka-vzduchu jako osoby optimistické, aktivní, bezstarostné. and Elements as a metaphorical personality description
The metaphor of four elements is dealt with as a metaphor of personality description. The study pursues how people understand this conception of metaphor of elements, i.e. which meanings they connect with elements on the personality level and what is the measure of correspondence of these meanings. The author starts from the theory of conceptual metaphor, prototypes theory, and the concept of folk model. The principle of metaphoric thinking is seen namely in metaphoric projection of concepts from the source area based on early pre-conceptual sensual- motoric experience to the goal area that is represented by more abstract concepts. The study of personality meanings attributed to particular elements and their correspondence was realized by the means of semantic differential and the list of personality descriptors (trait adjectives). The sample size was 82 for semantic differential and 54 for the list of adjectives. The results showed statistically significant correspondence in attributing elements in the majority of adjectives. The most powerfully differentiated was the human-fire, as strong, active, energetic, and emotive and also human-earth, perceived as judicious, rigid, and safe. The smaller correspondence was shown in humanwater, seen as an weak individual, adaptable, and sensitive and in human-air, as an optimistic, active, and carefree person.