Learning in Different Disciplines PDF

Learning in different disciplines 3 Categories of Courses ▪Humanities ▪ English, History, Religion, Philosophy, etc. ▪Social Sciences & Life Sciences ▪ Social Sciences = Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, etc. ▪ Life Sciences = Biology, Anatomy, Physiology, etc. ▪Math and Math-based Science...

Learning in different disciplines 3 Categories of Courses ▪Humanities ▪ English, History, Religion, Philosophy, etc. ▪Social Sciences & Life Sciences ▪ Social Sciences = Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, etc. ▪ Life Sciences = Biology, Anatomy, Physiology, etc. ▪Math and Math-based Sciences ▪ Calculus, Algebra, Statistics, Physics, Chemistry Evaluations (tests and assignments) in the humanities: Students are typically asked to ▪ explain ideas and theories ▪ compare and contrast ideas and theories ▪ analyze different texts ▪ evaluate theories and interpretations ▪ create their own interpretation, theories, models Learning in the Humanities (English, History, Religion, Philosophy\...) When learning in the humanities, focus on meaning and how details support meaning (don't just memorize details) ▪ How does this text work (what is the logic of its organization and use of rhetorical devices)? ▪ How do the concepts within the text work? ▪ Have you read texts with similar ideas? How are they the same? How are they different? ▪ How does this text or event fit into the larger historical or intertextual context? (Why was it written/why did the event described occur?) When studying: ▪ Identify common themes and all of the texts/events in which they can be found ▪ Compare texts or thinkers with similar themes ▪ How are they similar? How are they different? Learning in the Social and Life Sciences (Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology / Biology, Nutritional Science) Evaluations (tests and assignments) in the social and life sciences: ▪ first-year courses tend to focus on testing your understanding of terminology, concepts and theories---as well as your ability to apply terminology, concepts and theories in different situations and contexts ▪ tend to use multiple-choice questions more than other disciplines The greatest challenges are ▪ retaining large volumes of information ▪ focusing on concepts amid the sea of details and facts ▪ organizing and categorizing details and facts into meaningful units Given these challenges, it may be useful to review some of the principles of learning and memory ▪ Elaborative rehearsal and recoding both provide multiple retrieval cues---improves ability to retrieve information ▪ Retrieval is more efficient when there are links between pieces of information ▪ The use of different modes of storage (e.g. visual or graphic representations, linguistic representations, auditory representations, etc.) increases the number of retrieval cues Learning in Math / Math-based Sciences (Calculus, Algebra, Stats / Chemistry, Physics) Evaluations (tests and assignments) in first-year courses in math and math-based sciences: ▪ typically focus on problem solving, but may also include questions that test your knowledge of concepts and theories themselves ▪ e.g., questions may test whether you can recognize the right formula or concept to use in a certain situation AND how well you can apply that concept or formula When studying / practicing / reviewing Work on assigned problems. ▪ What are the similarities? ▪ What is the pattern? Work through problems until stuck ▪ What should be done next? ▪ Bring the unfinished problem to the instructor, TA, or help centre and ask what should be done next---and why. Critical Thinking Importance of critical thinking As information constantly changes, it is important to be able to think critically The knowledge you acquire now may cease to be as accurate down the road, but learning how to critically think (a built-in component of most courses and other facets of life) will always be useful In general, critical thinking is where "one seeks to establish the reasonableness of a proposition on the basis of relevant evidence" But different fields vary in how reasoning is done and what qualifies as relevant or good evidence Deductive versus inductive reasoning Deductive If argument is valid AND premises are true THEN conclusion must be true Inductive As more relevant evidence is added, it becomes more likely that the conclusion is true Deductive reasoning Also known as deduction -- uses a general principle or premise as grounds to draw conclusions Leads to valid conclusions when the premise is known to be true E.g. all spiders have 8 legs is known to be a true statement, therefore we can reasonably conclude that tarantulas, being spiders, have 8 legs Scientific method uses deduction to test scientific hypotheses and theories, which predict certain outcomes is they are correct Theories and hypotheses can be built on past knowledge and accepted rules, then tests are conducted to see whether those known principles apply to a specific case Deductive reasoning begins with a first premise, followed by a second premise and an inference, or a conclusion based on reasoning and evidence In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class Deductive conclusions are reliable provided that the premises they're based on are true, but if the original premise is false, then you run into issues Inductive reasoning Also called inductive logic or inference Inductive reasoning uses specific and limited observations to draw general conclusions that can be applied more widely Deductive reasoning is top-down moving from general premise to a specific case, inductive is the opposite -- uses bottom-up approach to generate new premises, or hypotheses, based on observed patterns Moves from specific to general -- make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation of a theory Reliability of a conclusion made with inductive logic depends on the completeness of the observations For example, you have a bag of coins; you pull three coins from the bag and they are all dimes; using inductive logic, you might then conclude that all of the coins are dimes -- but this conclusion is not guaranteed to be true Deductive versus inductive reasoning Deductive Example Premise 1: All mammals have backbones Premise 2: Humans are mammals Conclusion: Humans have backbones Inductive example Data: I see fireflies in my backyard every summer Hypothesis: This summer, I will probably see fireflies in my backyard Data: I tend to catch colds when people around me are sick Hypothesis: Colds are infectious Deductive example Premise 1: Every reasonable person loves whales Premise 2: You are a reasonable person Conclusion: You love whales Deductive is saying that this conclusion has to be true based on the premises Inductive Example Your instructor loves whales Your friend loves whales Your favourite school-teacher loves whales Conclusion: You might also love whales Inductive is saying that it is likely that the conclusion is true based on the evidence; more evidence would make it even more likely to be true Deductive reasoning holds a lot of appeal as it seems very concrete, however it is not concerned with whether the reasons are accurate or not, just whether they reasonably lead to the conclusion For example, with deductive reasoning, we could argue: Whales love cheeseburgers Dolphins are whales Therefore, dolphins love cheeseburgers This argument is 'logically valid' but it is not sound Critical thinking Critical thinking often requires knowledge of the subject -- it can be difficult to apply in new subjects even if it is well understood in a previous subject Looking at questions or arguments from various points of view requires having those points of view from which to draw Critical thinking Arguments are also not always logical Arguments from belief, for example, may be very convincing to someone who shares your beliefs, but not so much to those that don't These are often subject to a lot of scrutiny Arguments from opinion have a similar problem -- there may be anecdotal evidence, cultural biases, or passionate belief, but the evidence does not logically lead to the conclusion Have you ever argued over what the best band or sports team is? For this course critical thinking is a system of analysis to establish the validity of a proposition by: Examining evidence Organizing evidence in accordance with principles of formal reasoning Investigating rival causes Arriving at a qualified conclusion (limiting the scope of the conclusion) Rival causes As we need to ensure there is a logical relationship between the evidence and the conclusion, we have to look at rival causes and therefore expand our previous reasoning model We need to look for rival causes whenever we have an argument that relies on a causal connection between reasons and conclusion Our first explanation is not always the best, so we have to consider alternatives We may have been previously fooled and must remember that Correlation is not causation Association is not causation Events that are temporally related may not be causally related Explanations that assign causation to events may suffer from Confusion of cause and effect Neglect of the possibility of a common cause Causal oversimplification Post hoc fallacy Confusion of cause and effect Two events may be influencing one another as opposed to causing one another Example: married couples who spend more hours of the day in conversation tend to be happier -- but does conversation cause happiness or does the happiness cause the conversation Neglect of the possibility of a common cause Failure to recognize that two events are related because of the effects of a common third cause Example: trees fall into a river and then dead fish wash up -- thought that something from the trees was killing the fish, but it was really a chemical spill causing both Causal oversimplification Accepting an answer as the answer without acknowledging the complexity of causal relationships Example: I water the garden every day, which is why it grows so well Watering is helpful, but there are other factors such as soil quality and sunlight involved as well Post Hoc Fallacy If A preceded B, then A must have caused B Example: I walked under a ladder yesterday and today I fell and broke my wrist, therefore walking under the ladder caused me to break my wrist It is possible that this is the case, but there are many other possible causes for the broken wrist (and in this case, probably some more likely ones) Bloom's taxonomy Very popular theory in field of education Used to identify learning outcomes based on the level of learning and content and to identify assessments that assess progress towards those outcomes The levels in this taxonomy (which you will see on the next slide) are hierarchical -- each higher level requires learning in all lower levels as well Knowledge or Remembering ▪Verbs typically associated with this level: ▪ recognize, recall, memorize, repeat, reproduce, duplicate ▪Example: ▪learning outcome: remember the names of all the bones in the human body ▪sample assessment: multiple-choice test designed to test the memorization of the bones ▪rationale: multiple-choice test will show whether the information has been memorized Understanding or Comprehension ▪Verbs typically associated with this level: ▪ describe, discuss, explain, express, identify, report, restate, review, translate ▪Examples of courses dominated by objectives from this level (combined with knowledge/remembering): ▪ First year survey courses in disciplines that emphasize definitions and classifications, esp. life sciences and social sciences such as Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, etc Application ▪Verbs typically associated with this level: ▪ apply, practice, solve, sketch, operate, use, employ ▪Examples of courses dominated by objectives from this level: ▪ First-year courses in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, etc. ▪ Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology ▪Example: ▪learning outcome: be able to apply a formula to a problem ▪sample assessment: test with new problems requiring choosing the correct formula and solving the problem ▪rationale: need to use knowledge and critical thinking and can assess whether the formulas are understood and can be used for new problems Analysis ▪Verbs typically associated with this level: ▪ analyze, compare, contrast, differentiate, distinguish, discern, categorize ▪Examples of courses dominated by objectives from this level: ▪ Physics, Chemistry, Engineering ▪ Psychology, Sociology, Biology, Anthropology ▪ English, History, Philosophy, Political Studies Example: ▪ learning outcome: be able to analyze the role of a character in a play and the relationships among characters ▪ sample assessment: analyze the relationship between the antagonists and protagonists of a play in an essay ▪ rationale: assesses the learner's ability to use the knowledge of the play and critical thinking skills to analyze the relationship Synthesis ▪Verbs typically associated with this level: ▪ compose, construct, create, design, develop, formulate, plan, arrange, assemble, collect, manage, organize, write ▪Examples of courses dominated by objectives from this level: ▪ Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering ▪ Psychology, Sociology, Biology, Anthropology ▪ English, History, Philosophy, Religion, Political Studies ▪ Studio courses (Fine Arts, Env. Design), Management ▪Example: ▪learning outcome: be able to make an argument using multiple sources ▪sample assessment: write an argumentative essay ▪rationale: assesses knowledge of writing and ability to bring together ideas from multiple sources Evaluation ▪Verbs typically associated with this level: ▪ evaluate, assess, judge, appraise, rate, ▪Examples of courses dominated by objectives from this level: ▪ Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, ▪ Psychology, Sociology, Biology, Anthropology ▪ English, History, Philosophy, Religion, Political Studies ▪ Business/Management, Health Sciences Example: ▪learning outcome: evaluate the decisions made by a political figure ▪sample assessment: write a paper supporting or rejecting the decisions made by the figure using evidence ▪rationale: assesses ability to consider rationale for choices and actions Sources of evidence Subjective sources In arguments in our day to day lives, we tend to argue based on personal sensibilities, personal experience, or the experience of others -- this can be problematic as it is subjective Factual claims require factual evidence Factual claims can be proved or disproved; so if a claim is not subject to verification, it is not factual Intuition as evidence There are many ways that this has been described, but basically it is making a decision based on limited evidence or trusting one's instinct/gut Usefulness generally limited to individual who has the intuitive feeling It is also situational so cannot be generalized to other points in time Personal experience as evidence Tends to be one of the more compelling sources We make predictions based on past experiences -- often seems inductively sound However, we tend to make hasty generalizations from non- representative facts when using personal experience Another name for this is anecdotal evidence -- where one occurrence is mistaken as being representative We tend to only remember what is 'note-worthy' Testimonials Accounts others provide of their own personal experiences Things like the infomercial where an individual gushes about the effectiveness of some product Similar limitations as personal experience More systematic forms of investigation Appeals to authority as evidence Using evidence from someone who is seen as having authority or expertise in a given field or on a given subject If information from an authority is current and relevant, there is reason to trust it These qualifications sometimes fail to convince the general public -- there is often doubt regarding new studies These appeals are only reliable when the authority is authoritative (has expertise on the subject at hand) If the person does not have expertise, this becomes fallacious Observational studies as evidence Direct monitoring of subjects -- so derives directly from what we experience But we each see the world differently and so are influenced by our biases and motivations -- these need to be acknowledged We need to be aware of generalizations Case studies as evidence Tend to give a lot of information about a particular group, but are not always representative of the whole population of interest Often appealing due to experiential evidence and emotional appeal, but we have to be careful of generalizations Though not generalizable, case studies can still have a great deal of value for a particular phenomenon Which of the two types of reasoning (from last lecture) should we consider here? Scientific evidence Advantages and limitations In theory, the scientific method does not allow for much subjectivity -- a null hypothesis is tested and the results are accepted (practice is a bit less clear cut) Past knowledge influences science, but when we are careful, the influence is limited (remaining objective is important but challenging) Science is also influenced by culture -- for example, thinking someone in a lab coat has more authority Things to remember Science is slow Systematic and objective practice that takes time, work, and discipline Science is not a fan of accidents Careful design of studies so that causality is clear -- have to control for and examine rival causes Eureka moments are rare New discoveries take lots of time and work Science is verifiable Results need to be able to be confirmed, often by other scientists Not all science is good science The process of peer-review does not guarantee reliability; even questionable ideas will often find an audience Science does not deal in truth Cannot truly 'prove' anything, but can support a conclusion and conclusions can change over time -- questions are rarely truly closed It's complicated Popular news often spins things for their purposes, and this may not truly reflect the science that is behind the story -- good idea to go look at the actual study, not just the news report Researchers are human too Subject to biases and research can be compromised by a variety of factors Logical Fallacies Argumentation depends on a formal arrangement of evidence to establish logical connections between ideas so that the evidence leads to the conclusion Failure to maintain logical connection renders the argument illogical However, logical arguments are not always the most effective arguments -- fallacies are powerful, which is why they are used so often Fallacies are compelling because they do appear to participate in the conventions of reasoning -- as they have the form of a logical argument they often have the force of a logical argument Fallacies can be difficult to identify because the flaw is not always in the reasons themselves, but instead the relationship between the reasons and conclusion is compromised to the extent that the reasons do not logically lead to the conclusion Fallacious arguments are usually flawed in one or both of the following ways: Premises or reasons are irrelevant to the conclusion, or, The structure of the argument does not provide for a logical relationship between the premises and conclusion Categories of fallacies Fallacies in which the argument is accepted or rejected on the basis of the speaker's presumed character or characteristics Comes from the temptation to assume that good people make good arguments and bad people make bad arguments, even when there is no evidence for this Arguments should be judged on merit not their advocates Ad hominem (argument to the person) Distracts audience from evidence by instead focusing on the individual presenting the argument Appeal to questionable authority Arguer asks that one accept a proposition because it has been endorsed by a particular individual or agency, even though they lack authority in the specific field Glittering generalities Vague references to commonly held values Usually appeal emotionally, relying on the audience's acceptance of what appears virtuous Non sequiturs -- It does not follow Technically all fallacies are non sequiturs -- the conclusion does not follow from the reasons The following fallacies are grouped this way because it is useful to foreground the logical disconnect When someone asks the audience to accept a particular conclusion because he or she or they has/have suffered hardship Ad populum (appeal to the people) Citing authority of the majority (if everyone believes it, it must be right) Form of appeal to false authority Ad Baculum (appeal to force) Asks that one accept a proposition because the failure to do so may result in some negative consequences Circular arguments Use the premise to prove the conclusion and then use the conclusion to prove the premise Begging the question logic employs the use of logic in its own defence Explaining by naming Assumes that one has provided the reasons for a phenomenon because one has identified it False dilemmas Operate by representing situations that seem to offer only two choices, when really more options exist False dilemma Suggests that one must choose between two propositions Searching for the perfect solution Suggests that, unless a proposed course of action will lead to a complete resolution of a problem, one should do nothing at all Sleight of hand -- there was an argument here a second ago Argument seems to shift, moving the audience from one position to another without acknowledging subtle changes Slippery slope Operates by suggesting that the acceptance of one proposition will lead inevitably to the acceptance of another Equivocation Depends upon the ambiguous use of a term or phrase to make an argument -- key word is used with two different meanings Fallacies of distraction Operate by introducing evidence that serves only to distract the audience from the flaws in reasoning Red herring When irrelevant information is introduced to the issue being discussed to divert attention away Straw person Arguer attempts to diminish the authority of the opposing viewpoints by attacking exaggerated or caricatured versions of the opponent's position Generalization from non-representative facts Arguer extrapolates from non-representative facts to an unjustified conclusion There is less evidence for the conclusion than the arguer would have the audience believe Hasty generalization Moves from non-representative example to conclusion Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (false cause) From phrase "after this, therefore because of this" Asks that the audience believe that, because B comes after A, A caused B Bias bias (etymology/historic usage): a curved, crooked, or angled line, or something that moves in a curved, crooked, or angled line ▪ bias (common usage): unfair or lacking objectivity showing preference for one perspective over another Implicit bias ▪ explicit: knowledge that is clearly understood and can be communicated in words quite easily ▪ implicit: knowledge or assumptions that are not clearly expressed in words but are still evident How can we examine our biases? Implicit bias Unconscious attitudes, reactions, stereotypes, and categories that affect behaviour and understanding In academic settings, there can be implicit bias such as unconscious racial or socioeconomic bias towards students that lead to assumptions about academic success Instructors may assume that students know to seek help when struggling It may be assumed that certain students have differing intellectual abilities and/or ambitions There may be assumptions about writing abilities, participation styles, etc. Explicit bias A conscious preference or aversion toward a person or group of people, which results from deliberate thoughts that we can identify and communicate with others This can also manifest in academic settings Saying that female scientists who are mothers are not serious about their research A teacher making a comment of surprise when a certain student does well on an assignment when something about that student led them to assume they wouldn't Implicit and explicit Explicit: "female scientists who are mothers are not serious about their research" Implicit: not promoting female scientists who have a family Bias, of either type, impacts how we argue and how we interpret an argument -- it impacts the relationship between reasons and conclusion by including aspects that are not logical or based in fact, but rather in opinion (whether we know we hold that opinion or not Cultural assumptions Assumptions that one makes based on one's own cultural values Culturally based perspectives, attitudes, and behaviours Can be one type of implicit (or explicit) bias Can include things like meaning of words/phrases, perspective on what is good/bad or right/ wrong, prejudice and discrimination, etc. "universalism" \- the tendency to assume that all people think, feel, and act exactly the same regardless of the time and place in which they live "cultural imperialism" \- the attempt by imperial powers to export their own cultural so as to dominate others \- the underlying belief that all people should think, feel, and act exactly the same regardless of the time and place in which they live "othering" \- the tendency to treat as fundamentally and irreconcilably different or "other" people whom one identifies as belonging to a different place, race, ethnicity, gender, social class, etc. \- has the affect of marginalizing and/or oppressing the "other" "orientalism" \- Euro-American tendency "exoticize" and dehistoricize the "other" especially the Arab "other" \- esp. evident in "Enlightenment" ideas about universal "stadial" models of societal development: "savagery" → "barbary," → "civilization" These biases and assumptions are often unconscious and deeply ingrained and they impact how we act, particularly towards those who don't share the same culture or assumptions and can lead to negative impacts Further examples In the hiring process when one candidate is chosen due to cultural similarities or one is rejected due to cultural differences Judging people in public settings for engaging in behaviours that are seen as 'incorrect' in one's own culture -- like certain hand gestures Assuming everyone is at the same educational level or even has been taught the same things in academic settings when schooling experiences can differ greatly Possible consequences Cultural assumptions and biases can lead to: Misrepresentation Prejudice and discrimination Miscommunication Insensitivity Division Etc. Ambiguity Reasoning and Common Sense Common sense, as we think about it, doesn't really exist By definition, there aren't any things that we all know There is an assumption that human beings that are raised together will have many things in common, including a shared system of communication This system works well to some extent -- like knowing what 'red' refers to versus what 'green' refers to and 'hot' versus 'cold' But even these terms/ideas work best in comparison to one another -- green versus red as opposed to green-ish versus green-ish or cold in Manitoba versus Florida Even words to describe physical objects have difficulties -- for example defining 'table' so as to exclude things that are not tables Reasoning and argumentation require precision To make logical connections between premises, we need to make sure we are using the same terms in each premise, however terms don't always have precise meanings Think about looking in a thesaurus -- the whole idea is that the words are synonyms -- defined by the dictionary as: "a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language" (Oxford Languages) But there are differences in the exact meaning (consider the point of having a whole bunch of words to mean exactly the same thing) This excess of meaning in language creates ambiguity, which is a valuable tool in literary writing, but is less helpful in argumentation Ambiguity and Argumentation Ambiguity refers to the existence of multiple possible meanings for a word or phrase Therefore, it clouds the relationship between individual elements of an argument When trying to demonstrate that a proposition is supported by evidence, a logical relationship between evidence and conclusion is important -- if the evidence or conclusion is ambiguous, this creates problems Abstract terms (ones not referring to concrete or physical objects/entities) are usually more problematic than words that have a physical counterpart Abstract terms refer to general, vague, categories and so may permit a range of interpretation Avoiding ambiguity Clearly identify the way in which a term is being used in your particular context May be best to refer to an authority on the subject and use their definition Dictionary definitions are the accepted meanings in general usage, reflecting usage and so do not generally provide enough specificity Loaded Language Ambiguous language is sometimes used to manipulate readers intentionally Loaded language refers to rhetorical modes in which how words make people feel is being exploited to circumvent the rational review process of the reader It relies on the emotional effect of words to make a subliminal argument It evokes an emotional response for reasons that are not always completely clear to the individual Appeals to emotion are generally discouraged in academic discourse It is the potency of emotional appeals that makes them inappropriate for academic writing, despite their power Lies and Statistics Ambiguity in the term statistical averages Range of meanings that particular values might have For example, the word average -- an average may refer to one of three different values -- the mean, median, or mode Mean derived by adding all values together and dividing by number of values Median derived by listing values from highest to lowest and selecting one in the middle Mode derived by listing all values and determining which appears most often Confusion arising from using a single term, average, to describe different values can be exploited by arguer Faulty survey design Unanswerable survey questions Asking questions about how others feel -- things that are not available to outside observers and that they can't possibly know Non-representative sample groups Sampling burglars who were caught about home security deterrents -- not representative Respondent bias and researcher assumptions Questions that ask for confessions of attitudes or behaviours that are socially undesirable Failure to account for the inhibiting effect of socialization Asking individuals to predict likelihood they will engage in socially unacceptable activities Faulty relationship between study and conclusion Failure to ensure a logical connection between statistics and conclusion -- this makes quality of statistics largely irrelevant Correlation not causation Limits to the application of reason Is it logical to be logical when logic isn't working? Humans often fail to act logically and are often surprised when others fail to act logically Even when we behave irrationally, it is often with the firm belief that logical thought is the superior mode of thought As with anything, there are limits to logic and there are times when it is not the best approach -- flexibility is important As the textbook states "logicians are often unable to recognize the limitations of logic because it seems ridiculous to imagine that there might be limitations" but there are limitations Human decisions are often highly invested in emotion -- even if we'd like to pretend otherwise We are sentient beings -- meaning not just that we think, but we think and feel Decision-making activities occur in the part of the brain responsible for logic and language (the left hemisphere) and the part responsible for emotion (the amygdala) It is often argued that emotions are to the detriment of thinking, but we can't fully explain human cognition without including emotional sensibilities Why car salespeople work so hard to make people like them The emotional side of decision-making can be exploited Sales techniques are based in psychology and are designed to exploit our emotions One successful technique is friendliness Salespeople will use first names to increase intimacy and other similar techniques to make us feel liked They make us believe they are invested in us and us getting what we want and that makes it more difficult to walk away or advocate for ourselves Another technique is to exploit our natural risk-averse nature We are more inclined to take chances when there is little to lose and less inclined when being wrong could be costly Salespeople will put a 'limited time, just for you' deal on the table making it feel like there is something to lose and our decision-making ability, thus becomes compromise When someone helps us we often feel obligated to return that help -- this is also exploited by salespeople When we have been helped by a salesperson it is often more difficult to walk away without making a purchase -- there is a social obligation of reciprocity at play, but that obligation doesn't really apply in those settings as salespeople are paid to sell things -- they may be genuinely nice, but that should not create obligation to buy something Despite this, our default response is often to reciprocate in these situations as our decisions are guided by emotion and social contracts (often perceived ones Decision-making in information poor environments: you are smarter than you think We discussed that critical thinking requires resources like time and prior knowledge, which is a disadvantage of that approach as there are times when we don't have these resources That is why we also have heuristics -- our innate ability to think fast Heuristics are influenced heavily by bias, which some argue makes this kind of thinking unreliable; others argue that heuristics are based on experience and so, when used with caution, are effective The key here is that heuristics allow for quick decisions, as we discussed with the lioness example The best mode of thinking is the one that is best suited to the circumstances Both critical thinking and heuristics have advantages, disadvantages, and risks There are times when quick decisions are necessary and critical thinking could have very bad results and there are times when heuristics cause us to immediately assume the worst without considering all the information -- sometimes the best we can do is to try to be aware and try to approach the next situation more in a different way Heuristics A heuristic is a process that allows people to make guesses using the limited information they have available -- allows quick decisions Difference between critical thinking and thinking with heuristics Out on the plains of Africa in an earlier era two people foraging -- lioness approaches -- instills curiosity and continue foraging -- lioness attacks and eats one The following day, remaining person out again and another lioness approaches Critical thinking -- have only encountered one lioness before and, though it went poorly, should observe and get more information Heuristics rushes to judgement -- generalize from first experience and conclude that lionesses are dangerous Decision making Risks to both approaches Critical thinking takes time Heuristics lead to generalizations, which can be negative No subtle distinctions Which to use depends on the circumstances