Write a 8 page essay on Compare and contrast gigerenzers approach to judgment with that of kahneman and tversky.

Download file to see previous pages…

In this essay, Gigerenzer’s way of approach to the judgment is basically compared and contrasted to the way his counter parts, Kahneman and Tversky, approach to judgment (Hardman, &amp. Macchi, 2003). The arguments of both parties concerning their approaches to judgment are taken a very keen look in this essay. One of the differing point between Gigerenzer and Kahneman and Tversky is the probability of the cause of the problem incurs from the observed effect, termed as Bayesian inference problems. It has become an established fact that people give a lot of concentration to base problems of the same type. This was known as conservatism, which was a misconception. Kahneman and Tversky disagreed with this in the 1970s and 1980s, claiming that people do not really concentrate on such problems or rather people give very less concentration to such problems. Kahneman and Tversky used the same explanations and facts in their argument. They used the process of error inside the mind. Later, the intuitive Bayesian reasoning took a new root or line of reasoning, especially of the angle of ecological. On the other hand, Gigerenzer argued that an individual could also facilitate reasoning from the outside by simply having changed the representation of the external from probabilities, frequencies especially normalized or relative frequencies to natural frequencies (Heffernan, 2005). The ecological view argued above, has thus helped so many individuals to reason in the Bayesian way. It has become very important in several fields such as the medicine field and the law fields for making good judgments. Especially in the field of medicine, the diagnostic inferences of the physicians have considerably improved since the applications of use of natural frequencies, which replaced the probabilities. On the other hand, in the criminal law, based on the understanding of the DNA match, judges and other various law experts are able to improve the DNA match using the natural frequencies instead of using the probabilities. However, very few legal experts sided with verdict that turned out, according to the results, guilty presented in the statistical information resulting from natural frequencies. Holding of training programs especially to train the participants on how to translate the probabilities to natural frequencies and how they yield ling term effects on especially their capability to train other individuals on how to face and tackle issues emanating from probabilities. Not all the experts undergo training on the use of the natural frequencies, they only base on the conditional probabilities and the percentage to represent their arguments and thus coming up with a proper decision that makes a difference in a patient’s life, transforming their lives to either disparity or hope or even life or death (Heffernan, 2005). There are other facts where Gigerenzer do not agree with Kahneman and Tversky. These instances include, first, the empirical level where Gigerenzer is against the claims of Kahneman and Tversky whereby he questions the biases identified by the two claiming the biases are unstable.

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"