Jul. 3rd, 2015

Последнее время читаю литературу по т.н. наивным теориям (folk theories). Вот, например (доступно онлайн, так что ссылка не выглядит издевательством над теми, кто не имеет доступа к sciencedirect):

When both statistical cues and causal information are available, even young children attend to both (Schulz, Bonawitz & Griffiths, 2007). So, for example, if statistical cues compete with an a priori belief that illness has a physical, not psychological basis (e.g., a rabbit gets sick after being scared), children are influenced by the causal belief system as well as the statistical cues. As with scientists, children have a bias to accept confirmatory evidence, but sufficient counter-evidence will have a role (Legare, Gelman, & Wellman, 2010). Furthermore, use of statistical cues varies depending on one's understanding of the sampling process (e.g., Was the sample selected randomly or intentionally? Was the sample selected with the goal of learning about the sample, or with the goal of teaching about the sample?), and even infants appreciate this (Xu & Tenenbaum, 2007; Rhodes, Gelman, & Brickman, 2010; Gweon, Tenenbaum, & Schulz, 2010; Kushnir, Xu, & Wellman, 2010).

Фантастика. Много ли мы видим вокруг себя взрослых с таким вниманием к причинно-следственным связям и прилежанием к поиску контрпримеров в отношении вдруг поразившей их догадки? Где они только набрали таких вундеркиндов?

А это вообще красота: "Was the sample selected with the goal of learning about the sample, or with the goal of teaching about the sample?". Надо повесить над рабочим столом.

Profile

psr1913plus16

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 22nd, 2017 02:16 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios