Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:11:51.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conscious thinking, acceptance, and self-deception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Keith Frankish
Keith Frankish
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire MK7 6AA, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/philos/frankish.htm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This commentary describes another variety of self-deception, highly relevant to von Hippel & Trivers's (VH&T's) project. Drawing on dual-process theories, I propose that conscious thinking is a voluntary activity motivated by metacognitive attitudes, and that our choice of reasoning strategies and premises may be biased by unconscious desires to self-deceive. Such biased reasoning could facilitate interpersonal deception, in line with VH&T's view.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 20 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Bratman, M. E. (1992) Practical reasoning and acceptance in a context. Mind 101(401):1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P. (2006) The architecture of the mind: Massive modularity and the flexibility of thought. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P. (2009a) An architecture for dual reasoning. In: In two minds: Dual processes and beyond, ed. Evans, J. St. B. T. & Frankish, K., pp. 109–27. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L. J. (1992) An essay on belief and acceptance. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1991) Consciousness explained. Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007) Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgement. Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59:255–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Frankish, K., eds. (2009) In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Over, D. E. (1996) Rationality and reasoning. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Frankish, K. (2004) Mind and supermind. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankish, K. (2009) Systems and levels: Dual-system theories and the personal-subpersonal distinction. In: In two minds: Dual processes and beyond, ed. Evans, J. St. B. T. & Frankish, K., pp. 89–107. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankish, K. (2010) Dual-process and dual-system theories of reasoning. Philosophy Compass 5(10):914–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankish, K. & Evans, J. St. B. T. (2009) The duality of mind: An historical perspective. In: In two minds: Dual processes and beyond, ed. Evans, J. St. B. T. & Frankish, K., pp. 1–29. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2002) Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, ed. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D., pp. 49–81. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloman, S. A. (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 119(1):3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1999) Who is rational?: Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2004) The robot's rebellion: Finding meaning in the age of Darwin. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar