I (and many other Jews and others) use argument as a means of discovering the truth. So I believe the idea that this is how we evolved our decision making abilities.
Caution in the field of behavioral economics in particular is warranted. Even more so since the insurance company study Dan Ariely frequently referenced turned out to be essentially fake (not merely low significance or replicability). The key psychology elements I rely on are very solidly supported and have been replicated many dozens (or hundreds of times, if we move outside published articles). I lean heavily on confirmation bias, and take no heed of priming or the like. The concept of system one and system two is a popular framework for thinking about thinking (not a study result), which again is very solid. We can ask any friend the baseball and bat question to get an almost certain system one thinking answer, ( “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?” --- the mathematically correct system two answer is 5 cents, but almost nobody uses system two thinking to answer such an "obvious" question.)
I (and many other Jews and others) use argument as a means of discovering the truth. So I believe the idea that this is how we evolved our decision making abilities.
i appreciate footnote 1. in fact, my little "replication crisis" red flag has gone off several times when reading through all of your work (of which, i'm a huge fan!). i'm still just never sure what level of confidence to assign any given paper that's cited in an article. i would reconsider referencing Thinking, Fast and Slow, entirely. the replication crisis is so pervasive in psychology. see this paper https://replicationindex.com/2020/12/30/a-meta-scientific-perspective-on-thinking-fast-and-slow/ and there's a big reddit thread discussing it here https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/n5g1hc/probably_half_of_kahnemans_thinking_fast_and_slow/.
Caution in the field of behavioral economics in particular is warranted. Even more so since the insurance company study Dan Ariely frequently referenced turned out to be essentially fake (not merely low significance or replicability). The key psychology elements I rely on are very solidly supported and have been replicated many dozens (or hundreds of times, if we move outside published articles). I lean heavily on confirmation bias, and take no heed of priming or the like. The concept of system one and system two is a popular framework for thinking about thinking (not a study result), which again is very solid. We can ask any friend the baseball and bat question to get an almost certain system one thinking answer, ( “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?” --- the mathematically correct system two answer is 5 cents, but almost nobody uses system two thinking to answer such an "obvious" question.)