From: Richard Loosemore (rpwl@lightlink.com)
Date: Fri May 05 2006 - 11:16:43 MDT
I just happened to re-read my last post and noticed an editing mistake
sufficiently egregrious to really mess with somebody's head if they were
actually to read what I wrote.
The third paragraph below ends with ".... so", but this is not because I
was connecting it to the next paragraph, it is because my brain took a
quick vacation in La La Land and left in a completely useless sentence
fragment (Just ignore "A number of people have arguments that are equal
or closely related to this point, so").
Sorry for the confusion.
Richard Loosemore
> Specifically, there are two interpretations of their role:
>
> 1) The interfering mechanisms were just dumb, maladaptive strategies.
> Basically, systematic biasses and mistakes.
>
> 2) These other mechanisms were not just systematic biasses, but may
> actually have been components of very powerful, sensible, adaptive
> cognitive mechanisms that do not use logical reasoning, and without
> which the system as a whole could not function. A number of people have
> arguments that are equal or closely related to this point, so
>
> Interpretation (1) is the default assumption in the literature. To the
> extent that the literature looked at what was going on in these
> experiments, it tended to treat the situation as one of rationality
> corrupted by mistakes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT