The summerschool will be project based. Teachers will provide input to different thematic projects from which you can choose. Topics so far include medical decision making, numerical formats, risk communication, social influence and contagion, vaccination, environmental decision making, formal epistemological methods in conservation, management and policy.

____________________________________________________________________________

The below list is to be supplemented soon:

Project Title: Identifying misleading heuristic cues in reasoning challenges
Facilitator: Rakefet Ackerman

Metacognitive research is a sub-domain within cognitive psychology. It highlights the importance of reliability of subjective assessments regarding one’s own chance of success while performing cognitive tasks, such as learning, solving problems, making decisions, navigating, etc. Those subjective assessments guide people’s actions, like deciding whether to invest more time, how to phrase one’s answer, and whether to search for help. Meta-reasoning research focuses on the metacognitive processes which take place while people address reasoning challenges. Its practical aim is to guide people to assess their reasoning performance reliably and invest their mental efforts effectively. In the summer school, we will discuss known heuristic cues that may mislead people to think they are successful in their reasoning while they in fact err, or vice versa. In the project, we will aim to come up together with new potentially misleading heuristic cues for reasoning tasks.

Ackerman, R. (2019). Heuristic cues for meta-reasoning judgments: Review and methodology. Psychological Topics, 28(1), 1-20. [Open access].

Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. (2017). Meta-Reasoning:  Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(8), 607-617. [Self-made PDF] [Journal’s web site]

___________________________________________________________________________

Project Title: Frame it again! The role of framing in individual and collective decision-making
Facilitator: José Bermúdez

Framing effects are everywhere. An estate tax looks very different to a death tax. Gun safety seems to be one thing and gun control another. Yet, the consensus from decision theorists, finance professionals, psychologists, and economists is that frame-dependence is completely irrational. This project starts off from the twin facts (a) that some of the toughest decisions we face are clashes between different frames, and (b) that decision-makers can value the same thing differently in two different frames, even when they know that that they are really dealing with one thing framed in different ways. Can there be principles of rationality that accommodate these realities of practical decision-making? Can framing be a tool for rational decision-making?

Understanding “I”: Language & Thought (Oxford University Press)

The Bodily Self (MIT Press)

Self-Control, Decision Theory, and Rationality (Cambridge University Press)

___________________________________________________________________________

Project Title: Environmental Decision Making: The use of formal epistemological methods in conservation management and policy
Facilitator: Mark Colyvan

Formal tools such as decision theory, game theory, and the like have great potential for improving conservation management and policy. The use of such tools raises interesting (often technical) issues about their implementation and, in some cases, these tools deliver controversial policy advice. To give one example: a very straightforward application of decision analysis to prioritisation in the conservation of endangered species leads very naturally to a policy of triage, where maximising the expected benefit does not always coincide with attempting to save the most critically-endangered species. This project will investigate (i) the technical issues involved in applications of formal epistemological methods to conservation management and policy and (ii) the philosophical problems arising from such applications.

Colyvan, M., J. Justus, and H.M. Regan, H.M.2011. ‘The Conservation Game’, Biological Conservation, 144(4): 1246–53.

Wilson, H.B., L.N. Joseph, A.L. Moore, and H.P. Possingham. 2011. ‘When Should We Save the Most Endangered Species?’, Ecology Letters, 14(9): 886–890.

Wilson, K.A. and E.A. Law 2016. ‘Ethics of Conservation Triage’, Frontiers of Ecology and Evolution, 27 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2016.00112/full#h9

___________________________________________________________________________

Project Title: Improving risk literacy in medical decision making
Facilitator: Odette Wegwarth

An evidence-based health care requires risk-savvy doctors and patients. Yet, our health care system keeps falling short on both counts. Studies document that physicians are misled by framing effects created by relative as opposed to absolute risk formats, have difficulty calculating the positive predictive value of tests, or have trouble understanding cancer screening statistics. Patients do not fare better. The consequence of this collective risk illiteracy are physicians and patients who remain enthusiastic about potentially harmful medical procedures, while at the same time dismiss potentially beneficial ones. Why do we have this lack of risk literacy? One frequently discussed answer assumes that people suffer from cognitive deficits that make them basically hopeless at dealing with risks. Yet the fact that even 4th-graders can understand the positive predictive value if information is presented as natural frequencies shows that the problem rather lies in how information is presented and taught. Within the risk literacy project I like to invent and discuss novel ideas of how we may design and present medical information in the future in order to reduce unjustified hopes or fears (a good recent example might be the Corona-Virus).

Wegwarth O, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G. Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the U.S. Annals of Internal Medicine 2012; 156(5): 340–9.

McDowell M, Rebitschek F, Gigerenzer G, Wegwarth O. A simple tool for communicating the benefits and harms of health interventions: a guide for creating a fact box. Medical Decision Making Policy & Practice 2016

Wegwarth O, Pashayan N. When evidence says no: Gynecologists’ reasons for (not) recommending ineffective ovarian cancer screening. BMJ Quality & Safety 2019; (online ahead).

Prinz R, Feufel MA, Gigerenzer G, Wegwarth O. What counselors tell low-risk clients about HIV test performance. Current HIV Research 2015; 13: 369–80.