错觉是认知性过度警觉

IF 7.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
R. McKay, H. Mercier
{"title":"错觉是认知性过度警觉","authors":"R. McKay, H. Mercier","doi":"10.1177/09637214221128320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Delusions are distressing and disabling symptoms of various clinical disorders. Delusions are associated with an aberrant and apparently contradictory treatment of evidence, characterized by both excessive credulity (adopting unusual beliefs on minimal evidence) and excessive rigidity (holding steadfast to these beliefs in the face of strong counterevidence). Here we attempt to make sense of this contradiction by considering the literature on epistemic vigilance. Although there is little evolutionary advantage to scrutinizing the evidence our senses provide, it pays to be vigilant toward ostensive evidence—information communicated by others. This asymmetry is generally adaptive, but in deluded individuals the scales tip too far in the direction of the sensory and perceptual, producing an apparently paradoxical combination of credulity (with respect to one’s own perception) and skepticism (with respect to the testimony of others).","PeriodicalId":10802,"journal":{"name":"Current Directions in Psychological Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Delusions as Epistemic Hypervigilance\",\"authors\":\"R. McKay, H. Mercier\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09637214221128320\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Delusions are distressing and disabling symptoms of various clinical disorders. Delusions are associated with an aberrant and apparently contradictory treatment of evidence, characterized by both excessive credulity (adopting unusual beliefs on minimal evidence) and excessive rigidity (holding steadfast to these beliefs in the face of strong counterevidence). Here we attempt to make sense of this contradiction by considering the literature on epistemic vigilance. Although there is little evolutionary advantage to scrutinizing the evidence our senses provide, it pays to be vigilant toward ostensive evidence—information communicated by others. This asymmetry is generally adaptive, but in deluded individuals the scales tip too far in the direction of the sensory and perceptual, producing an apparently paradoxical combination of credulity (with respect to one’s own perception) and skepticism (with respect to the testimony of others).\",\"PeriodicalId\":10802,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Directions in Psychological Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Directions in Psychological Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221128320\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Directions in Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221128320","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

妄想是各种临床障碍的痛苦和致残症状。妄想与对证据的异常和明显矛盾的处理有关,其特点是过度轻信(在很少的证据上采用不寻常的信念)和过度僵化(面对强有力的反证据仍坚持这些信念)。在这里,我们试图通过考虑关于认识警惕的文献来理解这种矛盾。尽管仔细检查我们的感官提供的证据对进化没有什么好处,但对他人传递的显性证据——信息保持警惕是值得的。这种不对称通常是可以适应的,但在被欺骗的个体中,天平向感官和知觉的方向倾斜得太远,产生了轻信(关于自己的感知)和怀疑(关于他人的证词)的明显矛盾的组合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Delusions as Epistemic Hypervigilance
Delusions are distressing and disabling symptoms of various clinical disorders. Delusions are associated with an aberrant and apparently contradictory treatment of evidence, characterized by both excessive credulity (adopting unusual beliefs on minimal evidence) and excessive rigidity (holding steadfast to these beliefs in the face of strong counterevidence). Here we attempt to make sense of this contradiction by considering the literature on epistemic vigilance. Although there is little evolutionary advantage to scrutinizing the evidence our senses provide, it pays to be vigilant toward ostensive evidence—information communicated by others. This asymmetry is generally adaptive, but in deluded individuals the scales tip too far in the direction of the sensory and perceptual, producing an apparently paradoxical combination of credulity (with respect to one’s own perception) and skepticism (with respect to the testimony of others).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current Directions in Psychological Science
Current Directions in Psychological Science PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.00
自引率
1.40%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: Current Directions in Psychological Science publishes reviews by leading experts covering all of scientific psychology and its applications. Each issue of Current Directions features a diverse mix of reports on various topics such as language, memory and cognition, development, the neural basis of behavior and emotions, various aspects of psychopathology, and theory of mind. These articles allow readers to stay apprised of important developments across subfields beyond their areas of expertise and bodies of research they might not otherwise be aware of. The articles in Current Directions are also written to be accessible to non-experts, making them ideally suited for use in the classroom as teaching supplements.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信