3 results (0,15913 seconds)

Show all filters

Brand

Merchant

Price (EUR)

Reset filter

Products
From
Shops

An Analysis of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman's Judgment under Uncertainty Heuristics and Biases

An Analysis of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman's Judgment under Uncertainty Heuristics and Biases

Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman’s 1974 paper ‘Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’ is a landmark in the history of psychology. Though a mere seven pages long it has helped reshape the study of human rationality and had a particular impact on economics – where Tversky and Kahneman’s work helped shape the entirely new sub discipline of ‘behavioral economics. ’ The paper investigates human decision-making specifically what human brains tend to do when we are forced to deal with uncertainty or complexity. Based on experiments carried out with volunteers Tversky and Kahneman discovered that humans make predictable errors of judgement when forced to deal with ambiguous evidence or make challenging decisions. These errors stem from ‘heuristics’ and ‘biases’ – mental shortcuts and assumptions that allow us to make swift automatic decisions often usefully and correctly but occasionally to our detriment. The paper’s huge influence is due in no small part to its masterful use of high-level interpretative and analytical skills – expressed in Tversky and Kahneman’s concise and clear definitions of the basic heuristics and biases they discovered. Still providing the foundations of new work in the field 40 years later the two psychologists’ definitions are a model of how good interpretation underpins incisive critical thinking. | An Analysis of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman's Judgment under Uncertainty Heuristics and Biases

GBP 6.50
1

An Analysis of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's Can the Subaltern Speak?

An Analysis of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's Can the Subaltern Speak?

A critical analysis of Spivak's classic 1988 postcolonial studies essay in which she argues that a core problem for the poorest and most marginalized in society (the subalterns) is that they have no platform to express their concerns and no voice to affect policy debates or demand a fairer share of society’s goods. A key theme of Gayatri Spivak's work is agency: the ability of the individual to make their own decisions. While Spivak's main aim is to consider ways in which subalterns – her term for the indigenous dispossessed in colonial societies – were able to achieve agency this paper concentrates specifically on describing the ways in which western scholars inadvertently reproduce hegemonic structures in their work. Spivak is herself a scholar and she remains acutely aware of the difficulty and dangers of presuming to speak for the subalterns she writes about. As such her work can be seen as predominantly a delicate exercise in the critical thinking skill of interpretation; she looks in detail at issues of meaning specifically at the real meaning of the available evidence and her paper is an attempt not only to highlight problems of definition but to clarify them. What makes this one of the key works of interpretation in the Macat library is of course the underlying significance of this work. Interpretation in this case is a matter of the difference between allowing subalterns to speak for themselves and of imposing a mode of speaking on them that – however well-intentioned – can be as damaging in the postcolonial world as the agency-stifling political structures of the colonial world itself. By clearing away the detritus of scholarly attempts at interpretation Spivak takes a stand against a specifically intellectual form of oppression and marginalization. | An Analysis of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's Can the Subaltern Speak?

GBP 6.50
1

An Analysis of G.E.M. Anscombe's Modern Moral Philosophy

An Analysis of G.E.M. Anscombe's Modern Moral Philosophy

Elizabeth Anscombe’s 1958 essay “Modern Moral Philosophy” is a cutting intervention in modern philosophy that shows the full power of good evaluative and analytical critical thinking skills. Though only 16 pages long Anscombe’s paper set out to do nothing less than reform the entire field of modern moral philosophy – something that could only be done by carefully examining the existing arguments of the giants of the field. To do this she deployed the central skills of evaluation and analysis. In critical thinking analysis helps understand the sequence and features of arguments: it asks what reasons these arguments produce what implicit reasons and assumptions they rely on what conclusions they arrive at. Evaluation involves judging whether or not the arguments are strong enough to sustain their conclusions: it asks how acceptable adequate and relevant the reasons given are and whether or not the conclusions drawn from them are really valid. In “Modern Moral Philosophy ” Anscombe dispassionately turns these skills on figures that have dominated moral philosophy since the 18th-century revealing the underlying assumptions of their work their weaknesses and strengths and showing that in many ways the supposed differences between their arguments are actually negligible. A brilliantly incisive piece “Modern Moral Philosophy” radically affected its field remaining required – and controversial – reading today. | An Analysis of G. E. M. Anscombe's Modern Moral Philosophy

GBP 6.50
1