Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T01:20:24.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The rationality debate: Look to ontogeny before phylogeny

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2001

Stephanie Stolarz-Fantino  and
Edmund Fantino
Stephanie Stolarz-Fantino
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology-0109, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0109 sfantino@psy.ucsd.eduefantino@ucsd.edu
Edmund Fantino
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology-0109, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0109 sfantino@psy.ucsd.eduefantino@ucsd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Subjects have a rich history of decision making which would be expected to affect reasoning in new tasks. For example, averaging, a strategy that is effectively used in many decisions, may help explain the conjunction fallacy. Before resorting to accounts based on phylogeny, more parsimonious accounts in terms of ontogeny should be explored.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 23 , Issue 5 , October 2000 , pp. 698
Copyright
© 2000 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)