All of use heuristics--that is, we reach conclusions using shorthand cues without utilizing or analyzing all of the available information at hand. For instance, when we tell someone we walked 'a mile,' we might not know if we actually walked that distance precisely, but we know that if we tell someone that distance, the listener will have a good sense of the distance from point A to point B. Heuristics pervade all aspects of life, from the most mundane practices to more important ones like economic decision making and politics. The study of heuristics originated in psychology, but in recent years, behavioral economists like Daniel Kahneman have studied how heuristics shape our economic decisions. Not surprisingly, opinions vary about our tendency to use heuristics. The 'heuristics and biases' school argues that the practice often leads to outcomes that are not ideal: people act on too little information, make incorrect assumptions, and don't understand the consequences of their actions. The 'fast and frugal' school contends that while mistakes will inevitably occur, the benefits--prompt action that leads to real achievements, as opposed to paralysis-by-analysis--generally outweigh the costs. In The Heuristics Debate, Mark Kelman takes a step back from the chaos of competing academic debates to consider the wealth of knowledge that a more expansive use of heuristics can open up. Removing the concept from the realm of economic cost-benefit analysis and into the practical, relevant domains of public and private life, Kelman uncovers a powerful tool for understanding the relationship between human reasoning ad public policy. Can we figure out more optimal modes of disclosure to consumers, or better rules of evidence and jury instructions if we understand more accurately how people process information? Can we figure out how best to increase compliance with law if we understand how people make decisions whether or not to comply? Will democratically responsive bodies regulate risk better if we understand how the public overestimates and underestimates potential risks? Alongside a penetrating analysis of the various schools of thought on heuristics, Kelman ultimately offers a comprehensive account of how heuristics shapes--and misshapes--law and policy in America. The Heuristics Debate is a groundbreaking work that will reshape how we think about the relationship between human psychology, the law, and public policy.The book will appeal to advanced students and scholars of law, business and public policy, both for its insight into decision-making as well as its overall relevance to each of these fields. It will also be of interest to undergraduate psychology students, particularly those looking at the relationship between psychology and public policy.

All of us use heuristics--that is, we reach conclusions using shorthand cues without using or analyzing all of the available information. Heuristics pervade all aspects of life, from the most mundane practices to more important ones, like economic decision making and politics. People may decide how fast to drive merely by mimicking others around them or decide in which safety project to invest public resources based on the past disasters most readily called to mind. Not surprisingly, opinions vary about our tendency to use heuristics. The ''heuristics and biases'' school argues that the practice often leads to outcomes that are not ideal: people act on too little information, make incorrect assumptions, and don''t understand the consequences of their actions. The ''fast and frugal'' school contends that while mistakes will inevitably occur, the benefits generally outweigh the costs--not only because using heuristics enables us to reach judgments given realistic constraints of time and attention, but because heuristics users often outperform those using more conventionally rational methods. In The Heuristics Debate, Mark Kelman takes a step back from the chaos of competing academic debates to consider what we have learned--and still need to learn--about the way people actually make decisions. In doing so, Kelman uncovers a powerful tool for understanding the relationship between human reasoning and public policy. Can we figure out more optimal modes of disclosure to consumers or better rules of evidence and jury instructions if we understand more accurately how people process information? Can we figure out how best to increase compliance with law if we understand how people make decisions about whether or not to comply? Alongside a penetrating analysis of the various schools of thought on heuristics, Kelman offers a comprehensive account of how distinct conceptions of the role and nature of heuristic reasoning shape--and misshape--law and policy in America. The Heuristics Debate is a groundbreaking work that will change how we think about the relationship between human psychology, the law, and public policy.

Until now there has been no summary or overview of the wide range of work contributing to critical legal studies, the movement that has aroused such a furor in the communities of law and political philosophy. This book outlines and evaluates the principal strands of critical legal studies, and achieves much more as well.A good deal of the writing in critical legal studies has been devoted to laying bare the contradictions in liberal thought. There have been attacks and counterattacks on the liberal position and on the more conservative law and economics position. Now Mark Kelman demonstrates that any critique of law and economics is inextricably tied to a broader critique of liberalism.There are three central contradictions in liberal thought: between a commitment to mechanically applicable rules and to standards that fluctuate with situations; between intrinsic individual values and the objective knowledge of ethical truths; and between free will and determinism. Kelman shows us the pervasiveness of these contradictions in legal doctrine; their connection to broader political theory and to visions of human nature; and, finally, the degree to which mainstream thought tends to privilege certain of these commitments over others.The author also analyzes two of the most significant components of jurisprudence today the law and economics discipline and the legal process school. He concludes with a lively discussion of the role of law generally and of “cognitive legitimation,” or the ways in which legal thought can make the unnecessary, the contingent, and the unjust seem natural, inevitable, and fair.

This book weighs alternative conceptions of the equal opportunity principle through an empirical and ethical exploration of the Federal law that directs local school districts to award special educational opportunities to students who are classified as learning disabled (LD). Mark Kelman and Gillian Lester consider the degree to which students with learning disabilities (rather than merely slow learners, the socially disadvantaged, or even the gifted) are entitled to benefits that might well prove advantageous to their classmates, such as extra time to complete an exam or expensive, individually tailored educational programs.They examine the vexing question of how we should distribute extra educational funds: should we give them to those who have fewer material resources to begin with, to those who might benefit more than others from extra resources, or should we simply strive to create greater equality of outcome? The book exposes a growing conflict between those who want to distribute scarce resources on an individual basis to children who are in need whatever the reason, and those who seek to eliminate group inequalities.

All of use heuristics--that is, we reach conclusions using shorthand cues without utilizing or analyzing all of the available information at hand. For instance, when we tell someone we walked 'a mile,' we might not know if we actually walked that distance precisely, but we know that if we tell someone that distance, the listener will have a good sense of the distance from point A to point B. Heuristics pervade all aspects of life, from the most mundane practices to more important ones like economic decision making and politics. The study of heuristics originated in psychology, but in recent years, behavioral economists like Daniel Kahneman have studied how heuristics shape our economic decisions. Not surprisingly, opinions vary about our tendency to use heuristics. The 'heuristics and biases' school argues that the practice often leads to outcomes that are not ideal: people act on too little information, make incorrect assumptions, and don't understand the consequences of their actions. The 'fast and frugal' school contends that while mistakes will inevitably occur, the benefits--prompt action that leads to real achievements, as opposed to paralysis-by-analysis--generally outweigh the costs. In The Heuristics Debate, Mark Kelman takes a step back from the chaos of competing academic debates to consider the wealth of knowledge that a more expansive use of heuristics can open up. Removing the concept from the realm of economic cost-benefit analysis and into the practical, relevant domains of public and private life, Kelman uncovers a powerful tool for understanding the relationship between human reasoning ad public policy. Can we figure out more optimal modes of disclosure to consumers, or better rules of evidence and jury instructions if we understand more accurately how people process information? Can we figure out how best to increase compliance with law if we understand how people make decisions whether or not to comply? Will democratically responsive bodies regulate risk better if we understand how the public overestimates and underestimates potential risks? Alongside a penetrating analysis of the various schools of thought on heuristics, Kelman ultimately offers a comprehensive account of how heuristics shapes--and misshapes--law and policy in America. The Heuristics Debate is a groundbreaking work that will reshape how we think about the relationship between human psychology, the law, and public policy.The book will appeal to advanced students and scholars of law, business and public policy, both for its insight into decision-making as well as its overall relevance to each of these fields. It will also be of interest to undergraduate psychology students, particularly those looking at the relationship between psychology and public policy.

All of us use heuristics--that is, we reach conclusions using shorthand cues without using or analyzing all of the available information. Heuristics pervade all aspects of life, from the most mundane practices to more important ones, like economic decision making and politics. People may decide how fast to drive merely by mimicking others around them or decide in which safety project to invest public resources based on the past disasters most readily called to mind. Not surprisingly, opinions vary about our tendency to use heuristics. The ''heuristics and biases'' school argues that the practice often leads to outcomes that are not ideal: people act on too little information, make incorrect assumptions, and don''t understand the consequences of their actions. The ''fast and frugal'' school contends that while mistakes will inevitably occur, the benefits generally outweigh the costs--not only because using heuristics enables us to reach judgments given realistic constraints of time and attention, but because heuristics users often outperform those using more conventionally rational methods. In The Heuristics Debate, Mark Kelman takes a step back from the chaos of competing academic debates to consider what we have learned--and still need to learn--about the way people actually make decisions. In doing so, Kelman uncovers a powerful tool for understanding the relationship between human reasoning and public policy. Can we figure out more optimal modes of disclosure to consumers or better rules of evidence and jury instructions if we understand more accurately how people process information? Can we figure out how best to increase compliance with law if we understand how people make decisions about whether or not to comply? Alongside a penetrating analysis of the various schools of thought on heuristics, Kelman offers a comprehensive account of how distinct conceptions of the role and nature of heuristic reasoning shape--and misshape--law and policy in America. The Heuristics Debate is a groundbreaking work that will change how we think about the relationship between human psychology, the law, and public policy.

Until now there has been no summary or overview of the wide range of work contributing to critical legal studies, the movement that has aroused such a furor in the communities of law and political philosophy. This book outlines and evaluates the principal strands of critical legal studies, and achieves much more as well.A good deal of the writing in critical legal studies has been devoted to laying bare the contradictions in liberal thought. There have been attacks and counterattacks on the liberal position and on the more conservative law and economics position. Now Mark Kelman demonstrates that any critique of law and economics is inextricably tied to a broader critique of liberalism.There are three central contradictions in liberal thought: between a commitment to mechanically applicable rules and to standards that fluctuate with situations; between intrinsic individual values and the objective knowledge of ethical truths; and between free will and determinism. Kelman shows us the pervasiveness of these contradictions in legal doctrine; their connection to broader political theory and to visions of human nature; and, finally, the degree to which mainstream thought tends to privilege certain of these commitments over others.The author also analyzes two of the most significant components of jurisprudence today the law and economics discipline and the legal process school. He concludes with a lively discussion of the role of law generally and of “cognitive legitimation,” or the ways in which legal thought can make the unnecessary, the contingent, and the unjust seem natural, inevitable, and fair.

This book weighs alternative conceptions of the equal opportunity principle through an empirical and ethical exploration of the Federal law that directs local school districts to award special educational opportunities to students who are classified as learning disabled (LD). Mark Kelman and Gillian Lester consider the degree to which students with learning disabilities (rather than merely slow learners, the socially disadvantaged, or even the gifted) are entitled to benefits that might well prove advantageous to their classmates, such as extra time to complete an exam or expensive, individually tailored educational programs.They examine the vexing question of how we should distribute extra educational funds: should we give them to those who have fewer material resources to begin with, to those who might benefit more than others from extra resources, or should we simply strive to create greater equality of outcome? The book exposes a growing conflict between those who want to distribute scarce resources on an individual basis to children who are in need whatever the reason, and those who seek to eliminate group inequalities.