THINKING AND PROBLEM SOLVING

Submitted By
Hira Akhtar (1573)
Muqaddas Altaf (1572)
Rabbia Batool (1571)
Shehr Bono (1467)
Hadia Shamraz (1468)
Laiba Hameed (1469)
Noureen Mehmood (1472)

Submitted To: Ms. Adeela

April 1, 2024

Course Code: PSY-808

Course Title: Muslim Psychology

Department of Psychology
International Islamic University, Islamabad
>
 THINKING AND PROBLEM SOLVING
The focus on how people must gather the information that they acquired and then transform this
information to reach an appropriate answer involves using cognition to solve problems or
decision-making.

 Thinking

Thinking is a dynamic and multifaceted cognitive process that involves a combination of

perceptual, cognitive, and metacognitive activities to process information, solve problems, make
decisions, and generate new ideas or understand concepts. It plays a fundamental role in human
intelligence and behavior.

Thinking requires you to go beyond the information you were given so that you can reach a goal.
The goal may be a solution, a belief, or a decision.

Processes involved in thinking are various mental processes, including perception, memory,
reasoning, imagination, and creativity.

 Problem-solving

Problem-solving is an effort to overcome obstacles obstructing the path to a solution. Problem-

solving is included within the general category called “thinking.”

Although the nature of problems may differ, every problem includes three components:

 The initial state. The initial state describes the situation at the beginning of the problem.
 The goal state. You reach the goal state when you solve the problem.
 The obstacles. The obstacles describe the restrictions that make it difficult to proceed from
the initial state to the goal.

How to solve problems:

 Working in groups often facilitates problem-solving.

 We engage in problem solving when we need to overcome obstacles to answer a question or
to achieve a goal.
 How people solve problems depends partly on how they understand the problem.
  The Problem-Solving Cycle

The problem-solving cycle includes problem identification, problem definition, strategy

formulation, organization of information, allocation of resources, monitoring, and evaluation.

In
considering the steps, remember also the importance of flexibility in following the various steps
of the cycle. Successful problem-solving may involve occasionally tolerating some ambiguity
regarding how best to proceed. Rarely can we solve problems by following any one optimal
sequence of problem-solving steps. We may go back and forth through the steps. We can change
their order, or even skip or add steps when it seems appropriate.

1. Problem identification: Do we actually have a problem?

2. Problem definition and representation: What exactly is our problem?

3. Strategy formulation: How can we solve the problem? The strategy may involve:

 Analysis—breaking down the whole of a complex problem into manageable elements.

Instead, or perhaps in addition,
 It may involve the complementary process of synthesis—putting together various elements
to arrange them into something useful.
 Another pair of complementary strategies involves divergent and convergent thinking. In
divergent thinking, you try to generate a diverse assortment of possible alternative solutions
 to a problem. Once you have considered a variety of possibilities, however, you must
engage in convergent thinking to narrow down the multiple possibilities to converge on a
single best answer.

4. Organization of information: How do the various pieces of information in the problem fit
together?

5. Resource allocation: How much time, effort, money, etc., should I put into this problem?
Sometimes we don’t recognize an important problem that confronts us. Studies show that expert
problem solvers (and better students) tend to devote more of their mental resources to global
(big-picture) planning than novice problem solvers. Novices (and poorer students) tend to
allocate more time to local (detail-oriented) planning than do experts. For example, better
students are more likely than poorer students to spend more time in the initial phase, deciding
how to solve a problem, and less time solving it. By spending more time in advance deciding
what to do, effective students are less likely to fall prey to false starts, winding paths, and all
kinds of errors. When a person allocates more mental resources to planning on a large scale, he
or she can save time and energy and avoid frustration later on.

6. Monitoring: Am I on track as I proceed to solve the problem?

7. Evaluation: Did I solve the problem correctly?

Our emotions can influence how we implement the problem-solving cycle. In groups with
participants with highly measured emotional intelligence—that is, the ability to identify emotions
in others and regulate emotions in oneself—emotional processing can positively influence
problem-solving. In mathematicians, the ability to regulate their emotional state (among other
factors) is related to higher problem-solving ability.

 Cognitive Psychology Perspective:

Problem-solving and thinking are central topics within cognitive psychology, offering insights
into the inner workings of the human mind and providing practical applications in various
domains such as education, therapy, and human-computer interaction.

 Basic objects in natural categories:

Basic objects in natural categories refer to the most inclusive categories for which a concrete
image of the category as a whole can be formed. These objects carry the most information,
possess high category cue validity, and are highly differentiated from one another. Essentially,
they represent the fundamental building blocks or prototypes within a given category. For
instance, in the category of "birds," basic objects might include "sparrow" or "eagle," as they are
easily recognizable and distinct examples of birds. Basic objects play a crucial role in cognitive
processes such as categorization, where they serve as reference points for understanding and
organizing the world around us.

 Principle of Categorization

There are four principle of categorization:

1. Basic Categories: Natural objects are categorized into basic categories, which carry the
most information, possess high category cue validity, and are highly differentiated from
one another. These categories represent fundamental building blocks or prototypes within
a given domain. An example of basic categorization in natural objects is the classification
of animals into distinct groups based on common characteristics. For instance: Mammals:
This category includes animals that have fur or hair, give birth to live young, and nurse
their offspring with milk.
2. Prototype Theory: Categorization involves representing categories by prototypes, which
are the most typical or representative examples within a category. Prototypes serve as
reference points for categorization and feature the most salient attributes of the category.
An example of prototype theory in categorization of natural objects is evident in the
classification of "birds." Robins are often considered prototypical birds due to their
typical bird-like features such as wings, beaks, feathers, and the ability to fly. They
closely match the prototype of what people perceive as a typical bird
3. Graded Membership: Category membership is not binary; instead, objects have varying
degrees of membership based on their similarity to prototypes. Some objects may be
more typical members of a category than others. An example of graded membership in
categorization is observed in the classification of "birds." While certain birds like eagles
or sparrows are prototypical members of the category, others may exhibit features that are
less typical but still characteristic of birds. For instance: Penguins
 4. Fuzzy Boundaries: Categories often have fuzzy boundaries, meaning there is no clear-
cut distinction between what belongs and what does not. Objects near category
boundaries may be more ambiguous in terms of categorization. An example of fuzzy
boundaries in categorization can be seen in the classification of "rivers." Canals:
Artificial waterways designed for navigation or irrigation may also fall within the river
category, but their human-made nature blurs the boundaries between natural and
artificial.

We will argue that categories within taxonomies of concrete objects are structured such that there
is generally one level of abstraction at which the most basic category cuts can be made. In
general, the basic level of abstraction in a taxonomy is the level at which categories carry the
most information, possess the highest cue validity, and are, thus, the most dif- ferentiated from
one another. The basic level of abstraction can be de-scribed both in general terms of cognitive
economy and in the specific language of probabilistic cue validity (Brunswik, 1956).

 Cognitive Economy

To categorize a stimulus means to consider it, for purposes of that categorization, not only
equivalent to other stimuli in the same category but also different from stimuli not in that
category. On the one hand, it would appear to the organism’s advantage to have as many
properties as possible predictable from knowing any one property (which, for humans, includes
the important property of the category name), a principle which would lead to formation of large
numbers of categories with the finest possible discriminations between categories. On the other
hand, one purpose of categorization is to reduce the infinite differences among stimuli to
behaviorally and cognitively usable proportions. It is to the organism’s advantage not to
differentiate one stimulus from others when that differentiation is irrelevant for the purposes at
hand.

 Cue Validity

Cue validity is a probabilistic concept; the validity of a given cue x as a predictor of a given
category y (the conditional probability of y/x) increases as the frequency with which cue x is
associated with category y increases and decreases as the frequency with which cue x is
associated with categories other than y increases. [The precise mathematical form used to
compute the conditional probability y/x has varied (Beach 1964a, 1964b; Reed, 1972).] The
power of cue validity in formation of the internal structure of categories has been demonstrated
for both natural and for controlled artificial categories (Rosch & Mervis, 1975). The cue validity
of an entire category may be defined as the summation of the cue validities for that category of
each of the at- tributes of the category. (Note that category cue validity is not a probability: (a) its
value may exceed 1, (b) it does not have the same set theoretic properties as a probability.’ A
category with a high total cue validity is, by definition, more dif- ferentiated from other
categories than one of lower total cue validity.

 Concepts and Conceptual Structures

A concept is a mental representation of a category and refers to a class of objects, ideas, or

events that share common properties. It plays an important role in the thinking process as
concept formation helps in organizing knowledge so that it can be accessed with less time and
effort.

Concepts are the fundamental units in human consciousness, shaped by various factors including
individual and social experiences, as well as cultural and linguistic influences. Concepts are
stored in long-term memory and can be expressed through language, with contextual nuances
playing a significant role. They differ from notions and meanings, representing dynamic
cognitive units shaped by psychological and linguistic factors. This understanding contrasts with
a linguo-cultural perspective that emphasizes concepts as primary cultural units with objective
meanings transmitted across different aspects of human life.

 Formation of Concepts

The process of forming concepts begins with sensory experiences and direct interactions with
objects or phenomena. These experiences, along with operations involving existing concepts and
language communication, contribute to the development of new concepts. Initially, concepts are
often represented as vivid images, which gradually transition into more abstract mental
representations as they accumulate attributes and become more complex. However, the figurative
and sensory aspects of concepts persist alongside their linguistic nature. Language plays a crucial
role in shaping and refining concepts, serving as both a tool and a foundation for thinking.
Concepts are closely intertwined with words, and their development involves interaction with the
linguistic system. Ultimately, concepts are linked to multiple lexical units and form part of the
broader lexical and semantic framework.

 The Structure of Concepts

The structure of concepts is multifaceted, consisting of historical layers with varied origins and
semantics. Each layer encompasses figurative, notional, and value components. The active layer
comprises main attributes known across a culture, while passive layers include additional
attributes pertinent to subcultures. Emphasizing the individual nature of concepts, the figurative
component serves as a psychophysiological basis, comprising perceptive and cognitive images.
Value components, such as etymological and associative characteristics, also contribute to a
concept’s structure. The concept’s volume is determined by its core layer, additional cognitive
attributes, and cognitive layers. While the core contains invariant components, the periphery
comprises vague elements transitioning to other concepts. The core’s minimal dependence on
culture facilitates mutual understanding in communication. Basic abstract concepts may vary
across cultures, yet universal semantic components aid communication. Complex concepts
incorporate additional cognitive attributes, forming notional parts. The concept’s structure can be
depicted as a cloud or snowball, symbolizing its stochastic nature reflecting the probabilistic
world it represents.

 Piaget’s observations on age and conceptual behavior

Through clinical observations, Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget initiated a considerable study of
how young children learn concepts that help them cope with their physical surroundings. As
models for defining feasible change, concepts are at least as important in such contexts as they
are for classification. Piaget stressed that infants must first learn to distinguish themselves from
the external environment. Next, they form understandings of the physical world (for example,
identifying objects that fall) that allow further exploration of the world. Later in the preschool
period, children grasp the concept of spatial localization—objects that are separated in space.
Piaget characterized this period of learning as classifying objects only based on perceptually
attractive, concrete physical features (in agreement with laboratory studies of interdimensional
and extradimensional shifts).
He and others who used his methods reported that preschool children are apt to explain external
change in terms of their own needs: a four-year-old is likely to say that a cloud moves “because
the sun is in my eyes.” Among children in early primary grades, other interpretations of cause
and effect might be expressed by saying a moving cloud “wants to hide the sun.” In later primary
grades, volitional and passive movement usually become conceptually distinct. By adolescence,
children develop an ability to deal analytically with objects apart from their immediate
perceptual characteristics. This marks an understanding of the hierarchies of subclasses within
more general classes—for example, a normal child of eleven applies the properties of all living
things to the class called birds.

Given proper information, by the age of six many children display significant concept-forming
abilities. They ordinarily have considerable linguistic competence, using (though often not being
able to explain) such abstract qualifications as present and past tense. Rules of formal logic (such
as “new math”) can be taught in the elementary grades. The progressive use of abstract concepts
seems to reflect both maturation and learning.

The role of instruction in concept formation remains poorly understood, yet practically all
cultural heritage is explicitly taught. Better knowledge of how to instruct and of the role of
imitation in transmitting cultural concepts is needed. In addition, some linguists believe that
language itself guides how concepts will be formed; if a language has no words for a concept,
they assert, it is unlikely that a speaker of that language will think of that concept.

 Inductive Reasoning

Definition: According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, inductive reasoning is "the

process of drawing probable (likely, plausibly true) conclusions from premises that are known or
believed to be true."

Example: Suppose you observe that every time you eat a certain food, you get a stomach ache.
You might then generalize from this specific observation to the general principle that this food is
causing your stomach ache. This is an example of inductive reasoning because you are forming a
generalization based on specific observations.

 Deductive Reasoning
Definition: According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, deductive reasoning is "the
process of reasoning from one or more general statements (premises) to reach a logically certain
conclusion."

It is a form of logical reasoning that starts with a general principle or hypothesis and then applies
it to a specific case to draw a specific conclusion. It is often referred to as "top-down" reasoning
because it starts with a general principle and moves down to a specific conclusion. Deductive
reasoning is based on the concept of validity, where if the premises are true and the logical
structure of the argument is valid, then the conclusion must be true.

Example: An example of deductive reasoning is the following argument:

- All humans are mortal (premise)

- Socrates is a human (premise)

- Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion)

Difference: The key difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is in the direction of
the reasoning process. Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to general
principles, while deductive reasoning moves from general principles to specific conclusions.
Additionally, inductive reasoning leads to probable conclusions, while deductive reasoning leads
to conclusive conclusions if the premises are true.

 Modus Tollens

Modus Tollens is a valid form of deductive reasoning that allows us to infer the falsity of a
statement based on the falsity of its consequent. It follows the logical form: "If P, then Q. Not
Q, therefore not P."

Definition: According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, modus tollens is "a valid
argument form in propositional logic. It is the inference rule that allows one to infer a conditional
statement from its contrapositive."

Explanation: Modus Tollens is based on the logical principle that if a statement implies another
statement, and the implied statement is false, then the original statement must also be false. For
example:
- If it is raining (P), then the streets are wet (Q).

- The streets are not wet (not Q).

- Therefore, it is not raining (not P).

Importance: Modus Tollens is important in problem-solving and creativity because it allows us

to identify and eliminate false assumptions or conclusions. By applying Modus Tollens, we can
refine our reasoning and come to more accurate conclusions. In problem-solving, this can help us
avoid errors and find more effective solutions. In creativity, it can help us challenge conventional
thinking and explore new ideas.

Example: Imagine you are trying to solve a puzzle where each piece must fit perfectly to
complete the picture. You try a piece in a certain spot, and it doesn't fit. Instead of trying to force
it, you deduce that it must not belong there based on the fact that it doesn't fit. This process of
elimination is similar to Modus Tollens.

 Ponens Tollens

Definition: According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Ponens Tollens, also known
as affirming the consequent, is a valid argument form in propositional logic. It is the inference
rule that allows one to infer a conditional statement from its contrapositive." It is another form of
deductive reasoning that affirms the truth of the consequent based on the truth of the antecedent.
It follows the logical form: "If P, then Q. P, therefore Q."

Example: Suppose you have a rule that says, "If it is raining (P), then the streets are wet (Q)." If
you look outside and see that it is indeed raining (P), then you can conclude that the streets are
wet (Q).

 Cognitive Psychology Perspective:

a. Pattern Recognition: Ponens Tollens involves recognizing and applying patterns. In the
example, you recognize the pattern that rain causes wet streets and apply it to the current
situation to draw a conclusion.
b. Mental Models: Cognitive psychology explores how people create mental models to represent
the world. Ponens Tollens involves creating a mental model of the rule ("If P, then Q") and using
it to reason about specific situations ("P, therefore Q").

c. Decision-Making: Ponens Tollens is used in decision-making to draw logical conclusions. It

helps people make predictions about what will happen based on given information, which is
essential for effective decision-making.

 Cognitive Biases

Cognitive biases in problem-solving and thinking are tendencies or patterns of thought that can
lead individuals to make errors in judgment or decisions. These biases occur when our brains
take mental shortcuts, relying on heuristics or preconceived notions rather than carefully
considering all available information. Here are some common cognitive biases that can affect
problem-solving and thinking.

 Illusory Correlation:

Illusory correlation is when we think two things are related, but they're not really. Our brains
naturally connect certain events or characteristics, even when there's no real connection between
them.

For example, let's say we believe that people from a certain political party are more intelligent.
So, whenever we meet someone from that party who seems smart, we remember it more because
it fits our beliefs. But if we meet someone from that party who isn't smart, we might forget it or
not pay as much attention because it goes against what we expect. This makes us think there's a
connection between political affiliation and intelligence, even if there isn't one.

This can happen in other situations too, like in the psychiatric diagnoses based on projective tests
like the Rorschach and Draw-a-Person tests, researchers have observed a phenomenon called
illusory correlation. This means that people might falsely perceive a connection between certain
responses in these tests and specific psychiatric diagnoses.
For instance, researchers suggested that individuals diagnosed with paranoia tend to draw people
with large eyes more frequently than those with other diagnoses. However, this assertion was not
based on actual evidence of a consistent relationship between drawing style and psychiatric
diagnosis. It was more of a presumption or stereotype.

 Overconfidence

Overconfidence is when someone thinks too highly of their own abilities, knowledge, or
judgments. They may believe they are more correct or capable than they actually are.

Example: In an experiment, people were asked to answer questions where they had to choose
between two options, like whether "Absinthe" is a liqueur or a precious stone. After making their
choice, they were also asked to state how confident they were in their answer. Researchers found
that people tended to be overly confident. Even when they were completely sure (100%
confidence) in their answer, they were actually correct only 80% of the time.

Reasons for Overconfidence:

o People might not realize how little they actually know about a topic, leading them to
overestimate their abilities.
o Sometimes, people get information from unreliable sources but believe it to be accurate,
leading to overconfidence in their judgments.

Example: In the cell phone market, many contracts include a fixed monthly fee with a certain
number of included minutes. People often overestimate how many minutes they'll use but are
confident they won't exceed their limit. As a result, they agree to contracts with higher minute
limits than they actually need. However, if they do exceed their limit, they face steep charges.

 Hindsight Bias

Hindsight bias is when we look back at past events and believe we could have easily predicted
what would happen based on what we know now. But in reality, it's often much harder to foresee
these outcomes before they happen.

Examples:
Psychological Experiments: Imagine people are asked to predict the outcomes of psychological
experiments before they happen. Most of the time, they can't predict the outcomes any better
than chance. However, after learning the results, they might say things like, "Oh, I knew that
would happen!" even though they didn't predict it beforehand.

Personal Relationships: In personal relationships, when problems arise, we might fail to notice
the warning signs until the situation becomes a crisis. Afterward, we might think, "I should have
seen it coming! It was so obvious!" even though we didn't realize it at the time.

Sports Predictions: Before a sports game, many fans might make predictions about which team
will win. After the game, some fans might say things like, "I knew our team would win all
along!" even if they weren't so sure before the game started.

 Heuristic

Definition: Heuristics are mental shortcuts that lighten the cognitive load of making decisions.
In order to be able to make a decision within a reasonable time frame, we need to reduce the
available information to a manageable amount. Heuristics help us achieve this goal and at the
same time decrease our efforts by allowing us to examine fewer cues or deal with fewer pieces of
information.

 Types of Heuristics

1.

Satisficing: In this, we consider options one by one, and then we select an option as soon as we
find one that is satisfactory or just good enough to meet our minimum level of acceptability.
When there are limited working-memory resources available, the use of satisficing for making
decisions may be increased. It might be a reasonable strategy if you are in a hurry to buy a pack
of gum and then catch a train or a plane, but a poor strategy for diagnosing a disease.

2. Process of elimination by aspects: It is the process in which we eliminate alternatives by

focusing on aspects of each alternative, one at a time. If you are trying to decide which college to
attend, the process of elimination by aspects might look like this:

 focus on one aspect (attribute) of the various options (the cost of going to college);
 form a minimum criterion for that aspect (tuition must be under $20,000 per year);
 eliminate all options that do not meet that criterion (e.g., Stanford University is more
than $30,000 and would be eliminated);
 for the remaining options, select a second aspect for which we set a minimum
 criterion by which to eliminate additional options (the college must be on the West
Coast); and continue using a sequential process of elimination of options by considering
a series of aspects until a single option remains another example

In choosing a car to buy, we may focus on total price as an aspect. We may choose to dismiss
factors, such as maintenance costs, insurance costs, or other factors that realistically might affect
the money we will have to spend on the car in addition to the sale price.

Once we have weeded out the alternatives that do not meet our criterion, we choose another
aspect. We set a criterion value and weed out additional alternatives. We continue in this way.
We weed out more alternatives, one aspect at a time, until we are left with a single option. In
practice, it appears that we may use some elements of elimination by aspects or satisficing to
narrow the range of options to just a few. Then we use more thorough and careful strategies

3. Representativeness: We judge the probability of an uncertain event according to:

 how obviously it is similar to or representative of the population from which it is derived;

 the degree to which it reflects the salient features of the process by which it is generated
(such as randomness)

For example, people believe that the first birth order is more likely because: (1) it is more
representative of the number of females and males in the population, and (2) it looks more like a
random order than does the second birth order. In fact, of course, either birth order is equally
likely to occur by chance.

4. Availability Heuristic

We use the availability heuristic, in which we make judgments based on how easily we can call
to mind what we perceive as relevant instances of a phenomenon.

For example, consider the letter R. Are there more words in the English language that begin with
the letter R or that have R as their third letter? Most respondents say that there are more words
beginning with the letter R. Why? Because generating words beginning with the letter R is easier
than generating words having R as the third letter.

5. Anchoring A heuristic related to availability is the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic, by

which people adjust their evaluations of things by means of certain reference points called end-
anchors.

Before you read on, quickly (in less than 5 seconds) calculate in your head the answer to the
following problem:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Now, quickly calculate your answer to the following problem:

12345678

Two groups of participants estimated the product of one or the other of the preceding two sets of
eight numbers. The median (middle) estimate for the participants given the first sequence was
2,250. For the participants given the second sequence, the median estimate was 512. (The actual
product is 40,320 for both.) The two products are the same, as they must be because the numbers
are exactly the same. Nonetheless, people provide a higher estimate for the first sequence than
for the second because their computation of the anchor—the first few digits multiplied by each
other—renders a higher estimate from which they make an adjustment to reach a final estimate.

6. Framing Another consideration in decision theory is the influence of framing effects, in

which the way that the options are presented influences the selection of an option.
For example, A hand sanitizer can be framed as 99% effective or 1% not effective. Both carry
the same information but people respond more favorably to a 99% effective sanitizer. Here, the
frame is a gain (99% effective) or a loss (1% ineffective).

 Fallacies

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument.
Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points and are often identified because
they lack evidence that supports their claim. A fallacy is an illogical step in the formulation of an
argument. An argument in academic writing is essentially a conclusion or claim, with
assumptions or reasons to support that claim. For example, "Blue is a bad color because it is
linked to sadness" is an argument because it makes a claim and offers support for it.

 Gambler’s Fallacy and the Hot Hand

Gambler’s Fallacy: The Gambler’s Fallacy is the mistaken belief that if something happens
more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or
vice versa). Essentially, it's the erroneous belief that past outcomes affect future outcomes,
particularly in games of chance.

Example: In a game of roulette, if the ball lands on black several times in a row, someone might
think that it's "due" to land on red soon. However, each spin of the roulette wheel is independent,
so the previous outcomes do not influence the outcome of the next spin. Believing that the next
spin is more likely to land on red because of previous outcomes is an example of the Gambler's
Fallacy.

Hot Hand: The Hot Hand is the belief that a person who has experienced success with a random
event, such as making consecutive basketball shots, is more likely to continue experiencing
success in the immediate future.

Example: In basketball, if a player makes several consecutive shots, spectators and even players
might believe that the player has a "hot hand" and is more likely to make subsequent shots.
However, research suggests that the concept of the "hot hand" may be a cognitive illusion. Each
shot in basketball is an independent event, and a player's success or failure on one shot does not
significantly influence their likelihood of success on the next shot
  Conjunction Fallacy

The Conjunction Fallacy is a cognitive bias where people mistakenly believe that specific
combinations of events are more likely than single events, even though the probability of the
conjunction of events is always less than the probability of its constituent events. In other words,
people tend to assign higher probabilities to conjunctions of events than to the individual events
that make up the conjunction.

Example: Consider the following scenario: Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very
bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of
discrimination and social justice. Now, consider two statements about Linda:

Statement 1: Linda is a bank teller.

Statement 2: Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

When asked which statement is more likely to be true, many people choose Statement 2 because
it seems to fit Linda's description better. However, this choice ignores the laws of probability.
Statement 1 ("Linda is a bank teller") is logically more likely to be true because it's a single
event, whereas Statement 2 ("Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement") is a
conjunction of two events, which makes it less likely to be true. The conjunction fallacy occurs
when people mistakenly choose the conjunction over the single event because it seems more
representative or vivid.

 Sunk-Cost Fallacy

The Sunk-Cost Fallacy is a cognitive bias where individuals continue to invest resources (such as
time, money, or effort) into a project or decision because they have already invested so much,
even when the additional investment is unlikely to yield positive returns or change the outcome.
In other words, people irrationally factor in past investments (which are sunk costs and cannot be
recovered) when making decisions about future investments.

Example: Imagine you purchase a ticket to a movie, but after watching the first 20 minutes, you
realize it's not very good. You're tempted to leave, but then you think about the money you spent
on the ticket and decide to stay and watch the rest of the movie. In this scenario, the money you
spent on the ticket is a sunk cost because it's already been spent and cannot be recovered.
However, the decision to stay and watch the rest of the movie is influenced by the sunk-cost
fallacy. Even though staying won't change the fact that you've already spent the money on the
ticket, you feel compelled to stay because you don't want to "waste" the money you've already
invested.

 Algorithms

Algorithms sequences of operations that may be repeated over and over again and that, in theory,
guarantee the solution to a problem. An algorithm is a step-by-step procedure or set of rules to
solve a problem or accomplish a specific task. Algorithms are used extensively in computer
science, mathematics, and various fields to automate processes and perform computations
efficiently.

 Algorithms in Cognitive Psychology:

Consider a problem-solving task where someone needs to find a solution to a complex puzzle.
The person may use a mental algorithm involving systematic trial-and-error or breaking down
the problem into smaller, more manageable sub-problems. They might apply strategies such as
working backward from the goal, using analogies from similar past experiences, or employing
heuristics (rule-of-thumb strategies) to guide their search for a solution

Algorithms and Fallacies:

In the context of fallacies, algorithms represent the systematic patterns of flawed reasoning or
argumentation that individuals may use, often resulting in logical errors or misleading
conclusions.

Example:

Consider the algorithm known as the "Straw Man Fallacy":

 Identify the opponent's argument.

 Misrepresent or exaggerate the opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.
 Attack the distorted version of the opponent's argument instead of addressing the actual
argument presented.