Re: Intuitions, Illusions and Common Sense

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Neil W Rickert 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> David Longley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Given the interest in paradox, illusions and rationality, I thought some
> > folk might like to have a look at this:
>
> > http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/2002/kahnemann-lecture.pdf
>
> Given that it consists mostly of cognitivist interpretations of data,
> I wonder why somebody as apparently anti-cognitivist as Longley would
> suggest this.

Because as I (and Glen Sizemore) have said several times now, one can 
read the results behaviourally skipping the "cognitivist" gloss - as one 
can with all empirical research.

Many points have been explained to many folk in this newsgroup with no 
apparent change in their subsequent verbal behaviour. Some folk might 
like to look at the "What Works" .pdf files that I have made available 
at the website below.

The reason I suggested it was because 1) I've drawn attention to this 
recalcitrance before, and I've also drawn on the above line of research 
as one thread of "Fragments" (http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm) 
and 2) as I said when providing the link, people in this newsgroup seem 
to have an interest in paradox, illusions and rationality.
--
David Longley