Keywords:
heuristics, deliberation, enclave deliberation, strategic learning, folk psychologyCopyright (c) 2015 María G. Navarro
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Abstract
This article explains the connection between social heuristics and deliberative reasoning. Instead of characterizing heuristics according to disciplines or fields, here they are located in our deliberative enclaves. The author argues that the use of social heuristics guides both the flow of information as well as participation in the different deliberative phases; by analyzing heuristics, we establish indicators that measure levels of deliberation. This hypothesis leads to a pluralistic view of the social function of heuristics, understood as a toolbox affording new social utilities. It then becomes necessary to integrate this type of reasoning with a wider plan of action that explains in what sense heuristics are measures that produce knowledge, as opposed to knowledge that is already produced.
Downloads
References
Álvarez, J.F. (1995). Dinámica deliberativa y valores epistémicos. Isegoría, Vol. 12, pp. 137-147.
Atienza, M. (2013). Curso sobre argumentación jurídica. Madrid: Trotta.
Baron, J. (1993). Heuristics and biases in equity judgments: A utilitarian approach. En Mellers, B., y Baron, J. (Eds.) (1993). Psychological perspectives on justice. (pp. 109-137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beltrán, E., y Vallespín, F. (Eds.) (2012). Deliberación pública y democracias contemporáneas. Madrid: Síntesis.
Berlyne, D.E (1976). Theories of Thought Processes. Encyclopædia Britannica, vols. 5 y 18, p. 354a, 15th edición (Macropædia).
Dryzek, J.S. (2000). Deliberative Democray and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gigerenzer, G. (1996). Narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychological Review, Vol. 103, pp. 592-596.
Gigerenzer, G., y Engel, C. (Eds.) (2006). Heuristics and the law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Dahlem University Press.
Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspective on Psychological Science, Vol. 3, pp. 20-29.
Gigerenzer, G. y Sturm, T. (2011). How (far) can rationality be naturalized? Synthese, Vol. 187, pp. 243-288.
Goldstein, D. y Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, Vol. 109 , Nº 1, pp. 75-90.
Gutmann, A. y Thompson, D. (2003). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social instuitionist approach to moral judment. Psychological Review, Vol. 108, Nº 4, pp. 814-834.
Kahneman, D. y Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. En Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. y Kahneman, D. (Eds.)
(2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. (pp. 49-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. y Tversky, A. (Eds.) (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
López Cerezo, J.A. (1989), El caso contra la psicología popular, Cognitiva, Vol. 2, Nº 3, pp. 227-242.
Medina, José (2012), Hermeneutical injustice and polyphonic contextualism: Social silences and shared hermeneutical reponsabilities, Social Epistemology, 26 (2): 201-220.
Morado, R. y Savion, L. (manuscript). Rationality, logic, and heuristics.
Mouffe, Ch. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, Vol. 66, pp. 745-758.
Newell, A. y Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall.
Nudler, O. (2009). Espacios controversiales: hacia un modelo de cambio filosófico y científico. Buenos Aires: Miño y Dávila Editores.
Pereda, C. (2000). Heurística y argumentación. En Velasco Gómez, A. (Ed.) (2000). El concepto de heurística en las ciencias y las humanidades. (pp. 13-26). México: Siglo XXI.
Pérez Ransanz, A.R. (2000). Heurística y racionalidad en la ciencia. En Velasco Gómez, A. (Ed.) (2000). El concepto de heurística en las ciencias y las humanidades. (pp. 27-37). México: Siglo XXI.
Perona, Á. (2007). La ciudadanía inestable. Thémata. Revista de Filosofía, Vol. 39, pp. 263-267.
Rieskamp, J. (2008). The importance of learning when making inferences. Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, Nº 3, pp. 261-277.
Steiner, J. (2004). Deliberative politics in action: Analyzing parliamentary discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sunstein, C. (1999). The law of group polarization. John M. Olin Law & Econocmics Working Paper no. 91 (2nd Series).
Sunstein, C. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and brain sciences, vol 28, pp. 531-573.
Todd, P.., Gigerenzer, G. (Eds.) (2012). Ecological rationality: Intelligence in the world. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Tversky, A. y Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, Vol. 185, pp. 1124-1131.
Vega, L. (2011). Deliberación. En Vega, L. y Olmos, P. (Eds.) (2011). Compendio de lógica, argumentación y retórica. (pp. 177-182). Madrid, Trotta.
Wagenaar, W. A., van Koppen, P. y Crombag, H. (1993). Anchored Narratives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Wimsatt, W. C. (1986). Heuristics and the study of human behavior. En Donlad W. F, y Richard S. (Eds.) (1986). Metatheory in Social Science: Pluralism and Subjetivities. (pp. 293-314) .Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.