The Moral Grounds of Reasonably Mistaken Self-Defense

Some, but not all, of the mistakes a person makes when acting in apparently necessary self-defense are reasonable: we take them not to violate the rights of the apparent aggressor. I argue that this is explained by duties grounded in agents' entitlements to a fair distribution of the risk of suffering unjust harm. I suggest that the content of these duties is filled in by a social signaling norm, and offer some moral constraints on the form such a norm can take

Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience Can Inform Economics

Neuroeconomics uses knowledge about brain mechanisms to inform economic analysis, and roots economics in biology. It opens up the "black box" of the brain, much as organizational economics adds detail to the theory of the firm. Neuroscientists use many tools— including brain imaging, behavior of patients with localized brain lesions, animal behavior, and recording single neuron activity. The key insight for economics is that the brain is composed of multiple systems which interact. Controlled systems ("executive function") interrupt automatic ones. Emotions and cognition both guide decisions. Just as prices and allocations emerge from the interaction of two processes—supply and demand— individual decisions can be modeled as the result of two (or more) processes interacting. Indeed, "dual-process" models of this sort are better rooted in neuroscientific fact, and more empirically accurate, than single-process models (such as utility-maximization). We discuss how brain evidence complicates standard assumptions about basic preference, to include homeostasis and other kinds of state-dependence. We also discuss applications to intertemporal choice, risk and decision making, and game theory. Intertemporal choice appears to be domain-specific and heavily influenced by emotion. The simplified ß-d of quasi-hyperbolic discounting is supported by activation in distinct regions of limbic and cortical systems. In risky decision, imaging data tentatively support the idea that gains and losses are coded separately, and that ambiguity is distinct from risk, because it activates fear and discomfort regions. (Ironically, lesion patients who do not receive fear signals in prefrontal cortex are "rationally" neutral toward ambiguity.) Game theory studies show the effect of brain regions implicated in "theory of mind", correlates of strategic skill, and effects of hormones and other biological variables. Finally, economics can contribute to neuroscience because simple rational-choice models are useful for understanding highly-evolved behavior like motor actions that earn rewards, and Bayesian integration of sensorimotor information

How much of commonsense and legal reasoning is formalizable? A review of conceptual obstacles

Fifty years of effort in artificial intelligence (AI) and the formalization of legal reasoning have produced both successes and failures. Considerable success in organizing and displaying evidence and its interrelationships has been accompanied by failure to achieve the original ambition of AI as applied to law: fully automated legal decision-making. The obstacles to formalizing legal reasoning have proved to be the same ones that make the formalization of commonsense reasoning so difficult, and are most evident where legal reasoning has to meld with the vast web of ordinary human knowledge of the world. Underlying many of the problems is the mismatch between the discreteness of symbol manipulation and the continuous nature of imprecise natural language, of degrees of similarity and analogy, and of probabilities

Is social decision making for close others consistent across domains and within individuals?

Humans make decisions across a variety of social contexts. Though social decision-making research has blossomed in recent decades, surprisingly little is known about whether social decision-making preferences are consistent across different domains. We conducted an exploratory study in which participants made choices about 2 types of close others: parents and friends. To elicit decision making preferences, we pit the interests in parents and friends against one another. To assess the consistency of preferences for close others, decision making was assessed in three domains-risk taking, probabilistic learning, and self-other similarity judgments. We reasoned that if social decision-making preferences are consistent across domains, participants ought to exhibit the same preference in all three domains (i.e., a parent preference, based on prior work), and individual differences in preference magnitude ought to be conserved across domains within individuals. A combination of computational modeling, random coefficient regression, and traditional statistical tests revealed a robust parent-over-friend preference in the risk taking and probabilistic learning domains but not the self-other similarity domain. Preferences for parent-over-friend in the risk-taking domain were strongly associated with similar preferences in the probabilistic learning domain but not the self-other similarity domain. These results suggest that distinct and dissociable value-based and social-cognitive computations underlie social decision making. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

The Hidden Structure of Fact-Finding

This Article offers a new account of legal fact-finding based on the dual-process framework in cognitive psychology. This line of research suggests that our brains possess two radically different ways of thinking. “System 1” cognition is unconscious, fast, and associative, while “System 2” involves effortful, conscious reasoning. Drawing on these insights, I describe the ways that unconscious processing and conscious reflection interact when jurors hear and decide cases. Most existing evidential models offer useful insights about the ways that juries use relevant information in deciding cases but fail to account for situations in which their decisions are likely to be affected by irrelevant stimuli. The dual-process approach, by contrast, is able to explain both probative and prejudicial influences on decision making. As a demonstration, I use the dual-process framework to explain the surprising result in People v. Rivera, a case in which a jury convicted a man of rape and murder despite the admission of exonerating DNA evidence. This result, I suggest, was not the product of an unusually lazy or unreasonable jury but rather illustrates the way that our ordinary cognitive processes can lead us to endorse quite unreasonable results if primed using certain common prosecutorial strategies. After elaborating the dual-process model in a descriptive form, I then consider some of its normative implications. Many leading evidence scholars have argued that verdicts resting on “pure” or “naked” statistical evidence are problematic. Although the dual-process model of fact-finding is descriptive rather than normative, it nevertheless provides surprising insight into this debate by showing that our intuitive discomfort with verdicts that are based on purely statistical data may arise from the failure of such evidence to speak in terms that our unconscious, intuitive System 1 can process reliably. In such circumstances, intuitions about outcomes should be treated with caution. Thus, what unites the seemingly disparate examples of the Rivera trial and the naked statistical evidence debate is that, in both contexts, it feels right to do wrong

The Hidden Structure of Fact-Finding

This Article offers a new account of legal fact-finding based on the dual-process framework in cognitive psychology. This line of research suggests that our brains possess two radically different ways of thinking. “System 1” cognition is unconscious, fast, and associative, while “System 2” involves effortful, conscious reasoning. Drawing on these insights, I describe the ways that unconscious processing and conscious reflection interact when jurors hear and decide cases. Most existing evidential models offer useful insights about the ways that juries use relevant information in deciding cases but fail to account for situations in which their decisions are likely to be affected by irrelevant stimuli. The dual-process approach, by contrast, is able to explain both probative and prejudicial influences on decision making. As a demonstration, I use the dual-process framework to explain the surprising result in People v. Rivera, a case in which a jury convicted a man of rape and murder despite the admission of exonerating DNA evidence. This result, I suggest, was not the product of an unusually lazy or unreasonable jury but rather illustrates the way that our ordinary cognitive processes can lead us to endorse quite unreasonable results if primed using certain common prosecutorial strategies. After elaborating the dual-process model in a descriptive form, I then consider some of its normative implications. Many leading evidence scholars have argued that verdicts resting on “pure” or “naked” statistical evidence are problematic. Although the dual-process model of fact-finding is descriptive rather than normative, it nevertheless provides surprising insight into this debate by showing that our intuitive discomfort with verdicts that are based on purely statistical data may arise from the failure of such evidence to speak in terms that our unconscious, intuitive System 1 can process reliably. In such circumstances, intuitions about outcomes should be treated with caution. Thus, what unites the seemingly disparate examples of the Rivera trial and the naked statistical evidence debate is that, in both contexts, it feels right to do wrong