In the last 30 years, the systematic analysis of human thought has provided new evidences on intuition’s nature. It has been observed in experimental level that in front of decision-making problems, most people unknowingly adopt adaptive solutions that are different from logical inferences of normative rationality. To cope with the temporal and cognitive limitations, humans always use heuristic strategies that allow them to gather quickly useful information for survival. Naturally formal logic can lead to adequate choices, but its processes are slow and cognitively expensive. In this paper we intend to show how, in specific situations and contexts, the paths of formal logic and of natural logic (heuristics, intuitions and so on) diverge dramatically.
When intuitive decisions making, based on expertise, may deliver better results than a rational, deliberate approach / Maldonato, Mauro; Dell’Orco, Silvia; Sperandeo, Raffaele. - 69:(2017), pp. 369-377. [10.1007/978-3-319-56904-8_35]
When intuitive decisions making, based on expertise, may deliver better results than a rational, deliberate approach
Maldonato, Mauro;
2017
Abstract
In the last 30 years, the systematic analysis of human thought has provided new evidences on intuition’s nature. It has been observed in experimental level that in front of decision-making problems, most people unknowingly adopt adaptive solutions that are different from logical inferences of normative rationality. To cope with the temporal and cognitive limitations, humans always use heuristic strategies that allow them to gather quickly useful information for survival. Naturally formal logic can lead to adequate choices, but its processes are slow and cognitively expensive. In this paper we intend to show how, in specific situations and contexts, the paths of formal logic and of natural logic (heuristics, intuitions and so on) diverge dramatically.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
