Why Does Rubin's Vase Differ Radically From Optical Illusions? Framing Effects Contra Cognitive Illusions.

Many researchers use the term "context" loosely to denote diverse kinds of reference points. The issue is not about terminology but rather about the common conflation of one kind of reference points, such as rules of perception, which is responsible for optical illusions, with another kind, known as "context" or "frame," as exemplified in Rubin's vase. Many researchers regard Rubin's vase as a special kind of optical illusions. This paper rather argues that the two phenomena are radically different. Optical illusions are occasional mistakes that people quickly recognize and eagerly correct, while the different figures of Rubin's vase are not mistakes but, rather, the outcomes of different perspectives that do not need correction. The competing figures in Rubin's vase can, at best, in light of more information, be more warranted or unwarranted. This paper discusses at length one ramification of the proposed distinction. The framing effects, such as loss/gain frame, are the products of contexts and, hence, resemble greatly the figures in Rubin's vase. In contrast, cognitive illusions generated occasionally by the rules of thumb (heuristics) are mistakes and, hence, resemble optical illusions. The proposed distinction carries other ramifications regarding, e.g., happiness studies, moral judgments, and the new philosophy of science.

Is "willpower" a scientific concept? Suppressing temptation contra resolution in the face of adversity.

The distinction that Ainslie draws among the triple-phenomena "suppression," "resolve," and "habit" is a great advance in decision making theory. But the conceptual machinery "willpower," and its underpinning distinction between small/soon (SS) rewards as opposed to large/later (LL) rewards, provides a faulty framework to understand the triple-phenomena.

Moral licensing, instrumental apology and insincerity aversion: Taking Immanuel Kant to the lab.

Moral licensing, equivalently called "self-licensing", is the instrumental use of a Good Act to cover up a Bad Act. This paper's thesis is that "instrumental apology" i.e., bad-faith apology, is a case of moral licensing. A decision maker may issue an apology (Good Act) after committing a Bad Act, but if the decision maker uses the apology instrumentally, he or she is using the apology to justify the Bad Act. Hence, the apology is insincere. Sincerity is the fine line between a good-faith apology or, more generally, a Good Act, on one hand, and an instrumental apology or, more generally, moral licensing, on the other. In this light, moral licensing should be separated from genuine apology that attains moral equilibrium, which is called in the literature moral "self-regulation' and "conscience accounting." According to Kantian ethics, not just the consequences of an act matter, but also the sincerity with which the act was conducted. This pits Kant against the utilitarian view, which downplays intentions and focuses on consequences. We take Kant to the lab. Participants play a modified ultimatum game, where proposers in some treatments have the option of issuing apology messages and responders have both costly and costless options for rewarding or punishing proposers. We introduce different treatments of the apology message to allow responders to form doubts about the sincerity of the apology messages. Our results support the Kantian position: responders, once they become suspicious of the sincerity of the proposers' apology, exhibit "insincerity aversion" and punish proposers.

Does identity fusion give rise to the group - or the reverse? Politics- versus community-based groups.

This comment questions Whitehouse's theory. This comment proffers that people first choose their identity and later employ shared facts from the past to cement it. This is true with respect to two kinds of group identity: politics- and community-based identities. Contrary to Whitehouse, neither shared biology nor shared experience from the past is necessary for the constitution of either kind.

Deciphering mirror neurons: rational decision versus associative learning.

The rational-decision approach is superior to the associative-learning approach of Cook et al. at explaining why mirror neurons fire or do not fire - even when the stimulus is the same. The rational-decision approach is superior because it starts with the analysis of the intention of the organism, that is, with the identification of the specific objective or goal that the organism is trying to maximize.

Disentangling the order effect from the context effect: analogies, homologies, and quantum probability.

Although the quantum probability (QP) can be useful to model the context effect, it is not relevant to the order effect, conjunction fallacy, and other related biases. Although the issue of potentiality, which is the intuition behind QP, is involved in the context effect, it is not involved in the other biases.

Two kinds of theory-laden cognitive processes: distinguishing intransigence from dogmatism.

The brain is involved in theory-laden cognitive processes. But there are two different theory-laden processes. In cases where the theory is based on facts, more facts can either falsify or confirm a theory. In cases where the theory is about the choice of a benchmark or a standard, more facts can only make a theory either more or less warranted.