the illusion is entirely a byproduct of the modern environment, an effect on our brains of watching too many movies, music, etc...

our ancestors were expert hunter-gatherers, and so their experience would make them immune to the illusion

the illusion appeared evolutionarily only very recently, in the last thousand years or so

motion detection in our visual system can detect changes pretty well, in less distracting environments

the specific hat/or glasses they were wearing

the basics, but not details, of their clothing

their hair color

their gender

their race

although these memories are very vivid and powerful, most people know not to put more trust in them than they put in more ordinary sorts of memories

they remain very vivid and detailed over time, but the details themselves can change in unexpected ways

the vividness and emotional power of the memories are not a good sign that they're reliable---only the presence of fine-grained detail is a good sign of reliability in this kind of memory

they seem vivid when they're first formed, but their vividness fades away with time as they become less reliable

she had made the subjects read 'history articles' with some key dates changed, e.g., saying that Kennedy was elected president in 1958

she got them to 'remember' being at Disney World with Bugs Bunny, but since Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros. character, he would never be seen at a Disney facility

she used video footage of famous events that have been popularly mis-remembered, such as seeing video of a plane hitting the second World Trade Center tower, but where people mis-remember it as being the first World Trade Center tower

she has subjects give her access to their diaries and journals from many years ago, so she can compare their current 'memories' to what they recorded at the time

giving the witness an extra day to think clearly to themselves about what they had seen

removing all distractions from the viewing room, while the witness is viewing the line-up

giving witnesses only a few moments to pick a person out of a line-up

asking witnesses to reflect on their decision, and write up their reasons for selecting the person they did

in descending order of confidence

in ascending order of seniority

in ascending order of confidence

in descending order of seniority

Peter

Dunning-Kruger

Asch-Zimbardo

Doofus

we tend to not give credit to other people's legitimate claims of confidence

we tend to over-rely on how confident other people are, when deciding how reliable their abilities really are

we tend to be overconfident when estimating our own moral worth or deservingness

we tend to rely too much on other people's evaluations of us and our abilities, in deciding how self-confident we should be

since

for

but

given that

it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence

it is wrong at all times and places, for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence, if and only if their belief could put other people directly at risk

it is wrong for shipowners to put their ships to sea without first taking all appropriate measures to ensure that the ship verily is safe and seaworthy

it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to have believe anything upon insufficient evidence, with the essential exception of religious belief held on faith

in the first case, the owner knows that the ship is unsafe, but lies to his customers; in the second case, the shipowner honestly believes that the ship is safe

in the first case, the shipowner believes without sufficient evidence that the ship is safe, and so the ship sinks. In the second case, the shipowner believes only after getting good evidence, and so the ship arrives safely

in the first case, the ship sinks & everyone dies; in the second case, the ship is actually safe

in the first case, the shipowner thinks that he has good evidence that the ship is safe, but he is actually being tricked by an 'evil demon';in the second case, there is no 'evil demon'

true; true

false; false

true; false

false; true

true premises

conclusions

false premises

counterexamples

we should try visualize clearly in our mind's eye each step of the process

we should take an "outside view"

we should ask an expert how long it would take them to do it

we should consider the latest research in brain science as to the underlying neural mechanisms of this illusion

assign the entire text the number "1"

draw an arrow from "Chris will have a good time" to "she's coming to my party"

circle "therefore" and "since"

underline the main verb

medicore

unacceptable

sound

unsound

an argument whose premises are all true, reasoning is valid, and has a true conclusion

an argument whose premises are all true, and whose reasoning is invalid, and which has a true conclusion

an argument whose premises are all true, and whose reasoning is valid, and which has a false conclusion

an argument whose premises are all false, and whose reasoning is valid, and which has a true conclusion

using a word at one point in an argument, and a different way at a different point, so that what is really a bad argument looks like it might be good

discriminating illegitimately between 2 groups that ought properly be treated the same

inferring that A causes B, when all your premises really tell you is that A came before B

trying to refute someone's argument by attacking their character, instead of addressing the substance of what they said

perform a pareidolia procedure

not just use your intuitions, but to reflect on what you have already observed as well

make an inference according to the rule of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"

run an experiment

we tend to over perceive meaning in the world

we too quickly infer causation just on the basis of what order different events occurred

we too quickly infer causation just on the basis of different events happening together

we tend to under-attribute causation in the presence of robust correlations

risk-seeking; risk-neutral

risk-averse; risk-seeking

risk-seeking; risk averse

risk-neutral; risk-averse

circle "since" and "and"

circle "so" and "and"

circle "so" and "since"

invalid, because the conclusion is false

sound, but invalid, because it has at least 1 acceptable premise

unsound, because it has at least 1 unacceptable premise

sound, because all the premises and conclusion are true

A situation in which Quentin has an evil twin, Kwentin. And Kwentin comes to my party and has a good time, because everyone at all of my parties always has a good time. But the real Quentin stays home and just obsesses sadly on Yik Yak all night.

A situation in which Quentin skips my party, because she was going to your party -- but has an even better time than everyone at my party does. (And even though everyone at my party does have a good time.)

A situation in which Quentin doesn't come to my party, and she sits at home moping and doesn't have a good time. But if she had come to my party, where everyone always has a good time, she would have had a good time, too.

A situation where Quentin comes to my party, but has a lousy time anyway, even though every other guest at my parties always has a good time.

detect counterexamples in our own reasoning

perceive novel events that were unexpected

make it into a better story

reduce the impact of overconfidence

think of ourselves as owning some of the objects being described

modus tollens

denying the antecedent

affirming the consequent

disjunctive syllogism

modus ponens

disjunctive

exclusive

inclusive

hypothetical

concrete and familiar

social rules that we're looking to enforce

highly abstract

presented as part of a valid argument form

a

e

i

o

a

e

i

o

i

a

o

e

o

e

a

i

it only applies to categorical syllogism

it's a new method for evaluating the truth of premises of special sorts of arguments

to carry out the test, one encodes the information in the conclusion, and then sees if the premises are already made true

it can typically be done on 2-circle venn diagram

no sharks are herbivores

some herbivores are not sharks

some sharks are not herbivores

all non-sharks are herbivores

either one, but it doesn't matter which goes 1st

every even number is divisible 2

some even number is a perfect cube

some perfect cube is a number divisible by 2

no students are going to fail this course

no students will feel sad

either one, it doesn't matter which

everyone who fails this course will feel sad

we know that something is a snack, and because of the shading in the diagram, it must definitely be a cookie

we know that something is a snack, but it can't be a cookie

we know that something is a snack, half-cookie, half-something else

we know that something is a snack, but we don't know if it's a cookie

...our beliefs about the nature of validity will steer us towards different sorts of situations to consider as counterexamples

....we can get influenced by whether or not we find a conclusion believable on its own, even more than we're influenced by whether or not the argument is really valid

....we will rate an argument whose author we find basically believable as valid, regardless of whether or not the argument is really valid

....whether we already believe the premises to be true or not contributes to our evaluation of the ToP

that we form beliefs about our social identities so as to maximize the way in which we think others are distinct in a good way

that we form beliefs about our social identities so as to maximize the way in which we think we (and the groups we belong to) are distinct in a good way

that we form beliefs about our social identity by maximizing our number of positive concepts

that we form beliefs about our social identities so as to maximize the balance of benefits and costs for all concerned

assuming that members of a social group all necessarily have a certain positive trait

assuming that members of a social group all necessarily have a negative trait

assuming members of a social group typically engage in a particular behavior just because they belong to that group

assuming that what we hear about other social groups growing up is true

the idea that social privilege is monolithic, always experienced the same for everyone

the idea that social privilege isn't experienced as a privilege but rather feels like just the way things are

the idea that social privilege is experienced as a privilege that allows one to be invisible to scrutiny

the idea that social privilege is hard recognize for those who do not have it

bad

sound

fallacious

cogent

its conclusion will be about a specific individual

its SoR cannot be changed, even if new information or additional premises are brought in

the "percentage" term in the key premise will be <100% but must be >50% for the argument to be inductively strong

even when its successful, its SoR is never valid

strength of reasoning

ad hominem fallacy

acceptability of premises

categorical syllogism

your sample is biased towards one part of the population

your sample is too random

there's respondent deception bias

your sample's too small

never---that would be a form of holding a belief without sufficient reason

only when we are not putting anyone else's life or well-being at risk

only when we are doing careful & controlled scientific lab experiments

only based on an assumption of the uniformity of nature

self-selected samples are particularly untrustworthy

context bias, though a real source of worry, isn't a form of selection bias

the only way to remedy concerns about biased samples is to make sure that your sample size is large enough

the mathematically ideal way of trying to get a representative sample is via using a random sample

that we tend to overestimate the value of what is specially earmarked for someone other than us

that we tend to underestimate the value of what is specially earmarked for someone other than us

that intersectionality is especially important in discussion of social identity and difference

the costs of extending special rights and privileges to minorities

the tendency to prefer people whom we believe belong to the same groups we do

the tendency to judge people who are more active in society and politics more harshly than people who are passive and observe

the tendency to overestimate how much people agree with us

the tendency to judge our own behavior as resulting from particular external factors and to attribute other's behavior to internal factors

by appealing to intersectionality of identity

by recognizing how the invisibility of privilege cam combine with class difference and a loss of ethnic and racial history to create the mistaken impression that everyone else is afforded special opportunities

by appealing to the complexity of social systems

by recognizing the invisibility of privilege

as built on a false consensus and an in-group bias

as opportunities to reflect on our concepts and revise our beliefs for the better

as a zero-sum game

as poisoned by the media and its hostile effects due to false reporting

as a negative-sum game

a statistical generalization

a casual chain argument

a straw person

a disjunctive syllogism

recognizing that many fallacies are failed instances of good arguments schemes and forms

recognizing that fallacies can be evolutionarily useful

recognizing that fallacies are sometimes pragmatically useful

recognizing that fallacies can be rationally persuasive

when it appeals to the value of the history of the tradition

it's never in any way acceptable or rational

when it appeals to a sufficient long history

when it appeals to history itself

they are, in fact, identical

they only differ slightly and are used by slightly different people

the former asks for less evidence if the source is deemed less credible, the latter says that the claims are wrong if the source is deemed less credible

the former asks for more evidence if the source is deemed less credible, the latter says that the claims are wrong if the source is deemed less credible

it's nice

it's politically correct

it's an effective tool for critical thinking and justice

it's not, in fact, good to get in this habit

suspend trust and proceed with caution and skepticism

forgive the person

continue trusting the person

try to engage the person even more authentically and openly

humor that reinforces traditional stereotypes

non-arrogant humor that's honest and critically engaging, with the comedian laughing with the audience

"inside joke" humor that helps us bond within our social groups

arrogant humor that targets the audience, with the comedian laughing at the audience for their biases

by world traveling without regard for social privilege and disadvantage

by developing a "double consciousness" that helps us world travel

by being heroes or saviors to marginalized communities

by stopping traffic in the privileged EZ Pass Lanes we travel to bring attention to the long lines and understandable frustration in "those other" lanes

be sure to check our privilege openly in dialogue

be sure to enjoy the food that the world has to offer

center the world's inhabitants and their concerns

center our experience as travelers

that reason and emotion are intertwined

that sometimes just by being there in some circumstances, it can be world erasing for inhabitants seeking relief from privilege

that privilege is invisible

that others experience roadblocks on the road to social goods and rights

injustice done to someone in their capacity as a knower and contributor to the socially shared pool of knowledge, concepts, and meaning

injustice done to someone as a psychological person to which acts of thinking are imputable

injustice done to someone in their capacity as a scientist or epistemic theorist

injustice done to someone in their capacity as a witness or someone who can bear testimony

testimonial injustice in a speaker's credibility being lowered due to prejudice on the part of a hearer

hermeneutic injustice in a marginalized person lacking the concepts to make sense of their social experiences and communicate them to other

neither of these

patients' experiences being ignored by doctors who don't listen as carefully as they should and have biases about what is of diagnostic relevance

that when a patient has a delusional diagnosis, they're at risk of their cognitive activity as a whole being seen through the lens of delusionality

neither of these

that people are often frustrated by diversity discourse because they see it as distorting or misrepresenting peoples' identities

that in certain contexts, people in diverse groups experience more cognitive exhaustion

that the more diverse a group discussion is, the more energy it will take to engage in it

that in discussions of social identity and difference, more diverse groups are more likely to stop discussions earlier

that social identity is a neat, additive hierarchy of categories going from least to most oppressed

that social identity is mostly a matter of two categories: gender and race

that social identity is a neat, additive hierarchy of categories going from least to most privileged

that social identity is a complex intersection of different social identities such as gender, race, class, age, religion, and others interlocking around systems of power, privilege, and disadvantage

that social privilege is a paved and maintained road to social goods and rights that people with privileged identities can access

that social privilege is a roadblock to social goods and rights imposed by resentful oppressed people

that social disadvantage consists of people with non-privileged identities being unable to take paved and maintained roads to social goods and rights and instead facing roadblocks

the filter that people who are guilty of oppression use to think of themselves as decent people

the tendency of those in power to filter and hide information about injustice

the filter that people who are guilty of injustice use to avoid accountability

the tendency to let guilt at our history of power/privilege become a distorting filter that interferes with the work of actually addressing injustice

either as an inclusive democracy or as a dysfunctional anarchy

either as a happy patchwork of different identities or a dangerous set of oppositions rife with personal and political landmines

either as a happy patchwork of difference or as dysfunctional anarchy

either as an inclusive democracy or a dangerous set of oppositions rife with personal and political landmines

seeing how evidence of injustice provides an opportunity for intersectional thinking so we can think in terms of shared obstacles

seeing how evidence of injustice can often be misleading

seeing how evidence of injustice shows how there are uniform, identical experiences of oppression among different groups

seeing how evidence of injustice is evidence of a single monolithic omnipresent form of discrimination

that it's ignorance that's always pernicious and harmful

that all ignorance has the potential to be harmful but only becomes harmful in certain circumstances

that ignorance is never, by itself, pernicious

any racial microaggression that slights persons of color in automatic and unintentional ways

microaggressions characterized by communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person of color

microaggressions that attack an individual's epistemic reputation and credibility

ignorance that follows from one's social position and/or epistemic location with respect to some domain of knowledge

ignorance of the power relations and other relevant contextual features of a situation

ignorance of one's social position due to the invisibility of privilege

ignorance that one's situation puts one in a position of testimonial incompetence following from pernicious ignorance