A cognitive account of expertise: Why Rational Choice Theory is (often) a fiction

Author:

Muntanyola-Saura Dafne1

Affiliation:

1. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

Abstract

This paper arises from the need to explain expert decision-making in professional environments from a plural and interdisciplinary perspective. An extended review of Rational Choice Theory (RCT) from its first developments to current trends makes explicit the mismatch between RCT and empirical work settings. A review of recent theories on the cognitive abilities of agents makes clear the lack of integration between findings in evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, perceptual psychology and neurology, and those proposed by RCT. We will examine the causes for the failure of Good Old Fashioned Artificial Intelligence (GOFAI), the strongest empirical program for testing RCT premises. Contributions from the cognitive and social sciences put forward the weaknesses of analytical sociology at all four levels: the biological, the psychological, the epistemological, and the ontological. Alternative explanations from contemporary cognitive science will be put forward.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

History and Philosophy of Science,General Psychology

Reference104 articles.

Cited by 13 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3