Dysrationalia
Dysrationalia is defined as the inability to think and behave rationally despite adequate intelligence.[1] It is a concept in educational psychology and is not a clinical disorder such as a thought disorder. Dysrationalia can be a resource to help explain why smart people fall for Ponzi schemes and other fraudulent encounters.
History
The concept of dysrationalia was first proposed by psychologist Keith Stanovich in the early 1990s. Stanovich originally classified dysrationalia as a learning disability and characterized it as a difficulty in belief formation, in assessing belief consistency, or in the determination of action to achieve one's goals.[2] However, special education researcher Kenneth Kavale noted that dysrationalia may be more aptly categorized as a thinking disorder, rather than a learning disability, because it does not have a direct impact upon academic performance.[3]
Psychologist Robert Sternberg argued that the construct of dysrationalia needed to be better conceptualized since it lacked a theoretical framework (explaining why people are dysrational and how they become this way) and operationalization (how dysrationalia could be measured).[4] Sternberg also noted that the concept had the potential for misuse, as one may label another as dysrational simply because he or she does not agree with the other person's view. Stanovich then replied to both Kavale[5] and Sternberg.[6] Stanovich and his colleagues further developed the dysrationalia concept in later books.
In 2002 Sternberg edited a book, Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid, in which the dysrationalia concept was extensively discussed.[7] In his 2009 book What Intelligence Tests Miss, Stanovich provided the detailed conceptualization that Sternberg called for in his earlier critique.[8] In that book, Stanovich showed that variation in rational thinking skills is surprisingly independent of intelligence. One implication of this finding is that dysrationalia should not be rare.
Stanovitch proposed two concepts related to dysrationalia: mindware gap and contaminated mindware.[9]
- A mindware gap results from gaps in education and experience. This idea focuses on the lack or limitations within a person's knowledge in logic, probability theory, or scientific method when it comes to belief orientation or decision-making. Due to these gaps, intelligent people can make seemingly irrational decisions.
- Contaminated mindware, on the other hand, focuses on how intelligent people can "fall" for irrational ideologies, pseudosciences, and/or get-rich-quick schemes. A person can be led into such contaminated mindware through heuristic trust or fallacious reasoning.
Examples
One example that can be related to dysrationalia centers on two former Illinois schoolteachers who pulled their children from the local public school in the area because discussions of the Holocaust are a part of the history curriculum.[1] These parents, who are presumably competent due to their college education, believe that the Holocaust is a myth and should not be taught to their children. This is an example of a problem in belief formation regardless of intelligence.
A survey was given to Canadian Mensa club members on the topic of paranormal belief. Mensa members are provided membership strictly because of their high-IQ scores. The survey results show that 44% of the members believed in astrology, 51% believed in biorhythms, and 56% believed in the existence of extraterrestrial visitors. All these beliefs have no valid evidence.[1]
There are many examples of people who are famous because of their intelligence, but often display irrational behavior. Martin Heidegger, a renowned philosopher, was also a Nazi apologist and used the most fallacious arguments to justify his beliefs.[1] William Crookes, a famous scientist who discovered the element thallium and a Fellow of the Royal Society, was continually duped by spiritual mediums yet never gave up his spiritualist beliefs.[1]
See also
- Argumentation theory
- Bounded rationality
- Cognitive bias mitigation
- Cognitive development
- Cognitive miser
- Concept inventory
- Critical thinking
- Debiasing
- Double-loop learning
- Dyscalculia
- Dyslexia
- Dysthymia
- Educational assessment
- Great Rationality Debate
- Heuristics in judgment and decision-making
- Ignorance
- Illogicality
- Instructional scaffolding
- Irrationality
- Predictably Irrational
- Reflective equilibrium
- Stupidity
Notes
- 1 2 3 4 5 Stanovich, K.E. (1993). Dysrationalia: A new specific learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(8), 501–515.
- ↑ Stanovich, K.E. (1994). An exchange: Reconceptualizing intelligence: Dysrationalia as an intuition pump. Educational Researcher, 23(4), 11–22.
- ↑ Kavale, K.A. (1993). How many learning disabilities are there? A commentary on Stanovich's 'Dysrationalia: A new specific learning disability'. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(8), 520–523.
- ↑ Sternberg, R.J. (1994). What if the construct of dysrationalia were an example of itself? Educational Researcher, 23(4), 22–23, 27.
- ↑ Stanovich, K.E. (1993). It's practical to be rational. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 524–532.
- ↑ Stanovich, K.E. (1994). The evolving concept of rationality: A rejoinder to Sternberg. Educational Researcher, 23(7), p. 33.
- ↑ Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.). (2002). Why smart people can be so stupid. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- ↑ Stanovich, K.E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- ↑ Stanovich, K.E., Toplak, M.E., & West, R.F. (2008). The development of rational thought: A taxonomy of heuristics and biases. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 36, 251–285.
Further reading
- Croskerry, Pat (2015). "Clinical decision making". In Barach, Paul R.; Jacobs, Jeffery P.; Lipshultz, Steven E.; Laussen, Peter C. Pediatric and congenital cardiac care: quality improvement and patient safety. 2. London; New York: Springer Verlag. pp. 397–409. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-6566-8_33. ISBN 9781447165651. OCLC 900507959.
- Facione, Peter A.; Gittens, Carol Ann (2016) [2011]. Think critically (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. ISBN 9780133909661. OCLC 893099404.
- Forsythe, Chris; Liao, Huafei; Trumbo, Michael; Cardona-Rivera, Rogelio E. (2015). Cognitive neuroscience of human systems: work and everyday life. Advances in human factors and ergonomics series. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781466570573. OCLC 796750072.
- Holyoak, Keith J.; Morrison, Robert G., eds. (2012). The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. Oxford library of psychology. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.001.0001. ISBN 9780199734689. OCLC 773023517.
- Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. ISBN 9780374275631. OCLC 706020998.
- Nisbett, Richard E. (2015). Mindware: tools for smart thinking. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. ISBN 9780374112677. OCLC 889164994.
- Over, David (February 2010). "Dysrationalia: intelligence without rationality". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 14 (2): 55–56. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.11.006.
- Preiss, David; Sternberg, Robert J., eds. (2010). Innovations in educational psychology: perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development. New York: Springer Publishing. ISBN 9780826121622. OCLC 316035759.
- Stanovich, Keith E. (2010). "Metarationality: good decision-making strategies are self-correcting". Decision making and rationality in the modern world. Fundamentals of cognition series. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 143–162. ISBN 9780195328127. OCLC 318716093.
- Stanovich, Keith E. (November 2009). "Rational and irrational thought: the thinking that IQ tests miss" (PDF). Scientific American Mind. 20 (6): 34––39. doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind1109-34.
- Stanovich, Keith E. (2011). Rationality and the reflective mind. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341140.001.0001. ISBN 9780195341140. OCLC 648932780.
- Stanovich, Keith E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: the psychology of rational thought. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300123852. OCLC 216936066. Lay summary.
- Stanovich, Keith E. (January 2016). "The Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking" (PDF). Educational Psychologist. 51 (1): 23–34. doi:10.1080/00461520.2015.1125787.
- Stanovich, Keith E.; West, Richard F.; Toplak, Maggie E. (2016). The rationality quotient: toward a test of rational thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262034845. OCLC 946254542.
- Walton, Douglas N. (2010). "Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are". Informal Logic. 30 (2): 159–184.
External links
- Stanovich, Keith E. "Publications on reasoning and rationality". keithstanovich.com. Retrieved 16 October 2016.