Social biases - 1 Forer effect (aka Barnum Effect) - the tendency for people to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality, that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. Forer effect (aka Barnum Effect) - the tendency for people to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality, that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. Forer effect Forer effect Egocentric bias - occurs when people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results of a joint action than an outside observer would. Egocentric bias - occurs when people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results of a joint action than an outside observer would. Egocentric bias Egocentric bias False consensus effect - the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them. False consensus effect - the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them. False consensus effect False consensus effect

Social biases - 2 Fundamental attribution error - the tendency to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviours observed in others, while under- emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on that same behaviour. Fundamental attribution error - the tendency to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviours observed in others, while under- emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on that same behaviour. Fundamental attribution error Fundamental attribution error Halo effect - the tendency for a person's positive or negative traits to "spill over" from one area of their personality to another, in others' perceptions of them. Halo effect - the tendency for a person's positive or negative traits to "spill over" from one area of their personality to another, in others' perceptions of them.Halo effectHalo effect Illusion of asymmetric insight - people perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers' knowledge of them. Illusion of asymmetric insight - people perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers' knowledge of them. Illusion of asymmetric insight Illusion of asymmetric insight

Social biases - 3 Illusion of transparency - people overestimate others' ability to know them, and they also overestimate their ability to know others. Illusion of transparency - people overestimate others' ability to know them, and they also overestimate their ability to know others. Illusion of transparency Illusion of transparency In group bias - preferential treatment people give to whom they perceive to be members of their own groups. In group bias - preferential treatment people give to whom they perceive to be members of their own groups. In group bias In group bias Just-world phenomenon - the tendency for people to erroneously believe that the world is "just" and therefore people "get what they deserve." Just-world phenomenon - the tendency for people to erroneously believe that the world is "just" and therefore people "get what they deserve." Just-world phenomenon Just-world phenomenon

Social biases - 4 Lake Wobegon effect - the human tendency to report flattering beliefs about oneself and believe that one is above average. Lake Wobegon effect - the human tendency to report flattering beliefs about oneself and believe that one is above average. Lake Wobegon effect Lake Wobegon effect Notational bias - a form of cultural bias in which a notation induces the appearance of a nonexistent natural law. Notational bias - a form of cultural bias in which a notation induces the appearance of a nonexistent natural law. Notational bias Notational bias Outgroup homogeneity bias - individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups. Outgroup homogeneity bias - individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups. Outgroup homogeneity bias Outgroup homogeneity bias

Social biases - 5 Projection bias - the tendency to unconsciously assume that others share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions. Projection bias - the tendency to unconsciously assume that others share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions. Projection bias Projection bias Self-serving bias - the tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may manifest itself as a tendency for you to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to your interests. Self-serving bias - the tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may manifest itself as a tendency for you to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to your interests. Self-serving bias Self-serving bias

Social biases - 6 Trait ascription bias - the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behaviour and mood, while viewing others as much more predictable. Trait ascription bias - the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behaviour and mood, while viewing others as much more predictable. Trait ascription bias Trait ascription bias Self-fulfilling prophecy - the tendency to engage in behaviours that elicit results which will (consciously or subconsciously) confirm our beliefs. Self-fulfilling prophecy - the tendency to engage in behaviours that elicit results which will (consciously or subconsciously) confirm our beliefs. Self-fulfilling prophecy Self-fulfilling prophecy

Fallacies - 1 A fallacy is a reasoning “trick” an author might use while trying to persuade you to accept a conclusion. A fallacy is a reasoning “trick” an author might use while trying to persuade you to accept a conclusion. Once you have identified the reasons for a conclusion, you want to determine whether any fallacies were used. If so, you will not want to accept the conclusion based on that reasoning. Once you have identified the reasons for a conclusion, you want to determine whether any fallacies were used. If so, you will not want to accept the conclusion based on that reasoning. Thus, looking for fallacies in an important step in determining conclusion acceptance or rejection. Thus, looking for fallacies in an important step in determining conclusion acceptance or rejection.

Fallacies - 2 Ad hominem: An attack, or an insult, on the person rather than addressing the person’s reasoning. Ad hominem: An attack, or an insult, on the person rather than addressing the person’s reasoning. Slippery slope: Making the assumption that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events, when, in fact, procedures exist to prevent such a chain of events. Slippery slope: Making the assumption that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events, when, in fact, procedures exist to prevent such a chain of events.

Fallacies - 3 Searching for perfect solutions: Falsely assuming that because part of the problem would remain after a solution is tried, the solution should not be accepted. Searching for perfect solutions: Falsely assuming that because part of the problem would remain after a solution is tried, the solution should not be accepted. Equivocation: A key word is used with two or more meanings in an argument, such that the argument fails to make sense once the shifts in meaning are recognized. Equivocation: A key word is used with two or more meanings in an argument, such that the argument fails to make sense once the shifts in meaning are recognized.

Fallacies - 4 Appeal to popularity (ad populum): An attempt to justify a claim by appealing to sentiments that large groups of people have in common; falsely assumes that anything favoured by a large group is desireable. Appeal to popularity (ad populum): An attempt to justify a claim by appealing to sentiments that large groups of people have in common; falsely assumes that anything favoured by a large group is desireable. Appeal to questionable authority: Supporting a conclusion by citing an authority who lacks special expertise on the issue at hand. Appeal to questionable authority: Supporting a conclusion by citing an authority who lacks special expertise on the issue at hand.

Fallacies - 5 Straw person: Distorting our opponent’s point of view so that it is easy to attack; thus we attack a point of view that does not truly exist. Straw person: Distorting our opponent’s point of view so that it is easy to attack; thus we attack a point of view that does not truly exist. Either-or (false dilemma): Assuming only two alternatives exist when it is possible that there are more than two. Either-or (false dilemma): Assuming only two alternatives exist when it is possible that there are more than two. Wishful thinking: Making the faulty assumption that because we wish X were true (or false), then X is indeed true (or false). Wishful thinking: Making the faulty assumption that because we wish X were true (or false), then X is indeed true (or false).

Fallacies - 6 Explaining by naming: Falsely assuming that because you have provided a name for some event or behaviour that you have also adequately explained the event. Explaining by naming: Falsely assuming that because you have provided a name for some event or behaviour that you have also adequately explained the event. Glittering generality: The use of vague, emotionally appealing virtue words that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the reasons. Glittering generality: The use of vague, emotionally appealing virtue words that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the reasons.

Fallacies - 7 Red herring: An irrelevant topic is presented to divert attention from the original issue and help to “win” an argument by shifting attention, away from the argument and to another issue. Red herring: An irrelevant topic is presented to divert attention from the original issue and help to “win” an argument by shifting attention, away from the argument and to another issue. Begging the question: An argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning. Begging the question: An argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning.

Fallacies - 8 Hasty generalization fallacy: A person draws a conclusion about a large group based on experiences with only a few members of the group. Hasty generalization fallacy: A person draws a conclusion about a large group based on experiences with only a few members of the group. Faulty analogy: Occurs when an analogy is proposed in which there are important relevant dissimilarities. Faulty analogy: Occurs when an analogy is proposed in which there are important relevant dissimilarities. Causal over simplification: Explaining an event by relying on causal factors that are insufficient to account for the event or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of these factors. Causal over simplification: Explaining an event by relying on causal factors that are insufficient to account for the event or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of these factors.

Fallacies - 9 Confusion of cause and effect: Confusing the cause with the effect of an event, or failing to recognize that the two may be influencing each other. Confusion of cause and effect: Confusing the cause with the effect of an event, or failing to recognize that the two may be influencing each other. Neglect of a common cause: Failure to recognize that two events may be related because of the effects of a common third factor. Neglect of a common cause: Failure to recognize that two events may be related because of the effects of a common third factor. Post hoc fallacy: Assuming that a particular event, B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time. Post hoc fallacy: Assuming that a particular event, B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time.

Abduction - 1, or abductive reasoning, is the process of reasoning to the best explanations. Abduction, or abductive reasoning, is the process of reasoning to the best explanations. It is the reasoning process that starts from a set of observations or conclusions and derives their most likely explanations. It is the reasoning process that starts from a set of observations or conclusions and derives their most likely explanations. The term abduction is sometimes used to mean just the generation of hypotheses to explain observations or conclusions, given a theory. The term abduction is sometimes used to mean just the generation of hypotheses to explain observations or conclusions, given a theory.

Abduction - 2 Deduction and abduction differ in the direction in which a rule like " a entails b " is used for inference: Deduction and abduction differ in the direction in which a rule like " a entails b " is used for inference: Deduction allows deriving b as a consequence of a ; i.e., deduction is the process of deriving the consequences of what is known. Deduction allows deriving b as a consequence of a ; i.e., deduction is the process of deriving the consequences of what is known. Abduction allows deriving a as an explanation of b. Abduction allows deriving a as an explanation of b.

Abduction - 3 "a entails b " Abduction works in reverse to deduction, by allowing the precondition a of "a entails b " to be derived from the consequence b. I.e. abduction is the process of explaining what is known. " " Charles Peirce introduced abduction into logic, to mean the use of a rule or hypothetical fact to explain an observation, e.g. "if it rains the grass is wet" is used to explain why the grass is wet, given that it has rained, or vice-versa.

Abduction - 4 In logic, abduction is done from a logical theory T representing a domain and a set of observations O. In logic, abduction is done from a logical theory T representing a domain and a set of observations O. Abduction is the process of deriving a set of explanations of O according to T. For E to be an explanation of O according to T, it should satisfy two conditions: Abduction is the process of deriving a set of explanations of O according to T. For E to be an explanation of O according to T, it should satisfy two conditions: O follows from E and T; O follows from E and T; E is consistent with T. E is consistent with T.

Abduction - 5 In formal logic, O and E are assumed to be sets of literals. The two conditions for E being an explanation of O according to theory T are: In formal logic, O and E are assumed to be sets of literals. The two conditions for E being an explanation of O according to theory T are: – T ⋃ E ⊨ O ; – T ⋃ E is consistent. Among the possible explanations E satisfying these two conditions, a condition of minimality is usually imposed to avoid irrelevant facts (not contributing to the entailment of O ) to be included in the explanations. Among the possible explanations E satisfying these two conditions, a condition of minimality is usually imposed to avoid irrelevant facts (not contributing to the entailment of O ) to be included in the explanations.

Abduction - 6 An application of abduction is that of detecting faults in systems: given a theory relating faults with their effects and a set of observed effects, abduction can be used to derive sets of faults that are likely to be the cause of the problem. An application of abduction is that of detecting faults in systems: given a theory relating faults with their effects and a set of observed effects, abduction can be used to derive sets of faults that are likely to be the cause of the problem. Belief revision, the process of adapting beliefs in view of new information, is another field in which abduction has been applied. The main problem of belief revision is that the new information may be inconsistent with the corpus of beliefs, while the result of the incorporation must not be inconsistent. Belief revision, the process of adapting beliefs in view of new information, is another field in which abduction has been applied. The main problem of belief revision is that the new information may be inconsistent with the corpus of beliefs, while the result of the incorporation must not be inconsistent.