Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:00:32.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physics envy: Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2013

James Shanteau  and
David J. Weiss
James Shanteau
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Bluemont Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS [email protected]/psych/cws
David J. Weiss
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, California State University, Los Angeles, CA 90032. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pothos & Busemeyer (P&B) argue that classical probability (CP) fails to describe human decision processes accurately and should be supplanted by quantum probability. We accept the premise, but reject P&B's conclusion. CP is a prescriptive framework that has inspired a great deal of valuable research. Also, because CP is used across the sciences, it is a cornerstone of interdisciplinary collaboration.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 306 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

References

Baron, J. (2004) Normative models of judgment and decision making. In: Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making, ed, Koehler, D. J. & Harvey, N., pp. 19–36. Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brase, G. L. & Shanteau, J. (2011) The unbearable lightness of “Thinking”: Moving beyond simple concepts of thinking, rationality, and hypothesis testing. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 34:250–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elqayam, S. & Evans, J. St. B. T. (2011) Subtracting “ought” from “is”: Descriptivism versus normativism in the study of human thinking. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 34(5):233–48.Google Scholar
Jacobson, N. S., Roberts, L. J., Berns, S. B. & McGlinchey, J. B. (1999) Methods for defining and determining the clinical significance of treatment effects: Description, application, and alternatives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67:300–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lo, A. & Mueller, M. (2010) WARNING!: Physics envy may be hazardous to your wealth. Journal of Investment Management 8:13–63.Google Scholar
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S, Preacher, K. J. & Rucker, D. D. (2002) On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods 7:19–40.Google Scholar
Mach, E. (1911) History and root of the principle of conservation of Energy. Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
Malkiel, B. (2011, December 14) Physics envy [Review of the book Models behaving badly]. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 9, 2012 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203430404577094760894401548.html.Google Scholar
Mirowski, P. (1992) Do economists suffer from physics envy? Finnish Economic Papers 5:61–68.Google Scholar
Sapolsky, R. (1997) The trouble with testosterone, and other essays on the biology of the human predicament. Scribner.Google Scholar
Schabas, M. (1993) What's so wrong with physics envy? In: Non-natural social science: Reflecting on the enterprise of More Heat than Light, ed. de Marchi, N., pp. 45–53. Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Weiss, D. J., Edwards, W. & Weiss, J. W. (2009) The clinical significance decision. In: A science of decision making: The legacy of Ward Edwards, ed. Weiss, J. W. & Weiss, D. J., pp. 256–61. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Young, F. W. (1996, June) New directions in psychometrics. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychometric Society, Banff, -Canada.Google Scholar