Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Counterfactual thinking is a concept in psychology that involves the human tendency to create possible alternatives to life events that have already occurred; something that is contrary to what actually happened.
The study of counterfactual speculation has increasingly engaged the interest of scholars in a wide range of domains such as philosophy, [29] psychology, [30] cognitive psychology, [31] history, [32] political science, [33] economics, [34] social psychology, [35] law, [36] organizational theory, [37] marketing, [38] and epidemiology.
Significant research on simulation heuristic's application in counterfactual reasoning has been performed by Dale T Miller and Bryan Taylor. For example, they found that if an affectively negative experience, such as a fatal car accident was brought about by an extraordinary event, such as someone who usually goes by train to work but instead ...
This chapter examines the third rung of the ladder of causation: counterfactuals. The chapter introduces 'structural causal models', which allow reasoning about counterfactuals in a way that traditional (non-causal) statistics does not. Then, the applications of counterfactual reasoning are explored in the areas of climate science and the law.
Baruch, a psychology graduate student at the time, saw an opportunity in psychological research to explain this tendency. [8] Daniel Kahneman, who researched hindsight bias. In the early 70s, the investigation of heuristics and biases was a large area of study in psychology, led by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. [8]
Most people enter military service “with the fundamental sense that they are good people and that they are doing this for good purposes, on the side of freedom and country and God,” said Dr. Wayne Jonas, a military physician for 24 years and president and CEO of the Samueli Institute, a non-profit health research organization.
“After all, service members have to follow orders, and if ordered to do something it is by definition legal and moral.” Difficult problems might arise from official recognition of moral injury: how to measure the intensity of the pain, for instance, and whether the government should offer compensation, as it does for PTSD.
Reasoning is one of the most paradigmatic forms of thinking. It is the process of drawing conclusions from premises or evidence. Types of reasoning can be divided into deductive and non-deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is governed by certain rules of inference, which guarantee the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true.