Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, London WC1E 7HX, United Kingdom; email:
Nick Chater, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom; email:
Annu Rev Psychol. 2020 Jan 4;71:305-330. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-051132. Epub 2019 Sep 12.
The psychology of verbal reasoning initially compared performance with classical logic. In the last 25 years, a new paradigm has arisen, which focuses on knowledge-rich reasoning for communication and persuasion and is typically modeled using Bayesian probability theory rather than logic. This paradigm provides a new perspective on argumentation, explaining the rational persuasiveness of arguments that are logical fallacies. It also helps explain how and why people stray from logic when given deductive reasoning tasks. What appear to be erroneous responses, when compared against logic, often turn out to be rationally justified when seen in the richer rational framework of the new paradigm. Moreover, the same approach extends naturally to inductive reasoning tasks, in which people extrapolate beyond the data they are given and logic does not readily apply. We outline links between social and individual reasoning and set recent developments in the psychology of reasoning in the wider context of Bayesian cognitive science.
言语推理心理学最初将表现与古典逻辑进行了比较。在过去的 25 年中,出现了一种新的范式,该范式侧重于用于沟通和说服的知识丰富的推理,并且通常使用贝叶斯概率论而不是逻辑来对其进行建模。该范式为论证提供了新的视角,解释了逻辑谬误的论点具有理性说服力的原因。它还有助于解释为什么在给定演绎推理任务时人们会偏离逻辑,以及为什么会偏离逻辑。与逻辑相比,当将其与逻辑进行比较时,通常会在新范式更丰富的理性框架中合理地证明看起来是错误的响应。此外,相同的方法自然可以扩展到归纳推理任务中,人们可以根据所提供的数据进行推断,而逻辑却不容易适用。我们概述了社会和个人推理之间的联系,并将推理心理学的最新发展置于贝叶斯认知科学的更广泛背景下。