La falacia de la resistencia francesa y nuestra cotidiana ilusión de moral

The fallacy of french resistance and our everyday illusion of moral

  • Jorge Villalba-Arias Auxiliar de la Enseñanza de Psiquiatría, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Nacional de Asunción, San Lorenzo – Paraguay
  • Julio Torales Profesor Adjunto de Psiquiatría, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Nacional de Asunción, San Lorenzo – Paraguay. Editor Jefe, Revista Medicina Clínica y Social

Resumen

En cada instante de nuestra existencia consciente, nuestra mente es bombardeada por más de 11 millones de inputs de información. Debido a que nuestro cerebro dispone de apenas 10 Watts de energía, es comprensible que el mismo deba integrar estrategias que lo lleven a economizar recursos, no solo con el objetivo de optimizar recursos energéticos, sino también de asegurar respuestas que sean lo suficientemente rápidas como útiles e incluso vitales para la subsistencia. Tal situación es posible gracias a los heurísticos. En este artículo damos un recorrido por los principales heurísticos para luego explicar los sesgos que se generan a través de ellos. Dichos sesgos comprometen severamente nuestra objetividad en la toma de decisiones por lo cual incrementan la subjetividad de la moral y aleja a esta última de lo ético.


Palabras clave: Heurístico; Sesgo; Falacia; Moral; Ética.


ABSTRACT


At every moment of our conscious existence, our mind is bombarded by more than 11 million information inputs. Because our brain has only 10 Watts of energy, it is understandable that it should integrate strategies that lead to economize resources, not only with the aim of optimizing energy resources, but also to ensure responses that are fast enough and useful. and even vital for subsistence. Such a situation is possible thanks to the heuristics. In this article we give a tour of the main heuristics to then explain the biases that are generated through them. These biases severely compromise our objectivity in decision-making, increase the subjectivity of morality and move morality away from ethics.


Keywords: Heuristic; Bias; Fallacy; Moral; Ethics

Citas

1. Cortada de Kohan N. Los Sesgos Cognitivos en la Toma de Decisiones. International Journal of Psychological Research 2008;1(1):68-73. URL.
2. Pfister HR, Böhm, G. The multiplicity of emotions: A framework of emotional func-tions in decision making. Judgment and Decision Making 2008;3(1):5-17. URL.
3. Crotty P, Sangrey T, Levy WB. 2006. ‘Metabolic Energy Cost of Action Potential Veloc-ity’. J Neurophysiol. 2006;96(3):1237-46. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01204.2005
4. Beuchot M. Heurística y hermenéutica. 1ª ed. Ciudad de México: Editorial de la UNAM; 1999.
5. Jeng M. A selected history of expectation bias in physics. Am. J. Phys. 2006;74:578. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2186333
6. Myers DG. Social psychology. 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009.
7. Hansen HV. The Straw Thing of Fallacy Theory: The Standard Definition of 'Fallacy'. Argumentation 2002;16(2):133-155. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015509401631
8. Kahneman D, Frederick S. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intui-tive judgment. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, editors. Heuristics and Biases. The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2012. p. 49-81.
9. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982.
10. Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor DG. The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, editors. Heuristics and Biases. The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2012. p. 397-420.
11. Restrepo LF, Rodríguez H. Análisis comparativo de la esperanza de vida en Sudaméri-ca, 1980 - 2010. Rev Univ. salud. 2014;16(2): 177-187. URL.
12. Pinker S. The truth about falling coconuts. CMAJ. 2002;166(6):801. URL.
13. Chapman GB, Johson EJ. The Limits of Anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 1994;7(4):223-242. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960070402
14. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 1974;1185(4157):1124-1131. URL.
15. Worchel S, Cooper J, Geothals GR, Olson JM. Psicología Social. México: International Thomson Ediciones; 2002.
16. Haselton MG, Nettle D, Andrews PW. The evolution of cognitive bias. In: Buss DM, ed-itor. The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2005. p. 724-746.
17. Busenitz LW, Lau CM. A Cross-Cultural Cognitive Model of New Venture Creation. En-trepreneurship Theory and Practice 1996;20(4):25-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879602000403
18. Baron RA. Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing 1998;13:275-294.
19. Gilbert DT. Speeding with Ned: A personal view of the correspondence bias. In: Dar-ley JM, Cooper J, editors. Attribution and social interaction: The legacy of E. E. Jones. Washington: APA Press; 1998.
20. Forer BR. The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1949;44(1):118-123. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059240
21. Baron J. Thinking and deciding. 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
22. Nisbett R, Wilson TD. The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judg-ments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1977;35(4):250-256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250
23. Pronin E, Kruger J, Savitsky K, Ross. You don't know me, but I know you: the illusion of asymmetric insight. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001;81(4):639-656. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.639
24. Zubieta E, Barreiro A. Percepción social y creencia en el mundo justo. Un estudio con estudiantes argentinos. Revista de Psicología . 2006;XXIV(2):175-196. URL.
25. Sternberg RJ, Roediger III HL, Halpern DF, editors. Critical thinking in psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
26. Shermer M. The Political Brain [Internet]. Armonk, New York: Scientific American; 1 July 2006 [cited 28 December 2018]. Available from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/
27. Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, Heckman JD, Brand RA, Leopold SS. Testing for the Presence of Positive-Outcome Bias in Peer Review: A Randomized Controlled Tri-al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(21):1934-1939. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2010.406
28. Fischhoff B. Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment un-der uncertainty. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(4):304-312. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.12.4.304
29. Arkes H, Faust D, Guilmette TJ, Hart K. Eliminating Hindsight Bias. Journal of Applied Psychology 1988;73(2):305-307. URL.
30. Korstanje M. El miedo político bajo el prisma de Hannah Arendt. Revista SAAP 2014;8(1):99-126. URL.
31. Haidt J, Graham J. When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intui-tions that Liberals may not Recognize. Social Justice Research. 2007;20(1):98-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
32. Chapouthier G. To what extent is moral judgment natural? European Review (GB) 2004;12(2):179-183.
33. Kidder R. How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living. New York: Harper Collins; 2003.
34. Richard, P, Linda E. The Miniature Guide to Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning. United States: Foundation for Critical Thinking Free Press; 2006.
35. Olson RG. Deontological Ethics. In: Edwards P, editor. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Collier Macmillan; 1967. p. 343.
36. Scholl JA, Mederer HJ, Scholl RW. Leadership, Ethics, and Decision-Making. In: Farazmand A, editor. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. New York: Springer: 2016. p. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2407-1
37. Selart M, Johansen ST. Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: The Role of Leader-ship Stress. Journal of Business Ethics. 2011:99(2); 129-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0649-0
38. Schulz K. En defensa del error. Madrid: Ed. Siruela; 2015
Publicado
2019-05-16
##submission.howToCite##
VILLALBA-ARIAS, Jorge; TORALES, Julio. La falacia de la resistencia francesa y nuestra cotidiana ilusión de moral. Medicina Clínica y Social, [S.l.], v. 3, n. 1, p. 19-26, mayo 2019. ISSN 2521-2281. Disponible en: <http://medicinaclinicaysocial.org/index.php/MCS/article/view/75>. Fecha de acceso: 15 nov. 2019
Sección
Artículos de Revisión