Anthropomorphism as Cognitive Bias

Abstract

Philosophers and psychologists have long worried that a human tendency to anthropomorphize leads us to err in our understanding of nonhuman minds. This tendency, which I call intuitive anthropomorphism, is a heuristic used by our unconscious folk psychology to understand the behavior of nonhuman animals. I argue that the dominant understanding of intuitive anthropomorphism underestimates its complexity. It does often lead us to err, but not always. And the errors it produces are not only overestimations of nonhuman intelligence. If we want to understand and control intuitive anthropomorphism, we must treat is as a cognitive bias, and look to the empirical evidence. The literature on controlling implicit social biases is particularly helpful. That literature suggests that the most common for intuitive anthropomorphism, Morgan's Canon, should be rejected, while others need supplementation. It also suggests new approaches.

The Biology and Evolution of the Three Psychological Tendencies to Anthropomorphize Biology and Evolution

“…I then use this inclusive view to illuminate cases and issues of anthropomorphism in biology and evolution, as well as to help promote more effective strategies to deal with its positive and negative sides. This approach is aligned with evolutionary educational psychology ( Geary, 2002 ) and with other attempts aimed at integrating different perspectives about mental anthropomorphism and its implications for understanding life (e.g., Whiten, 1991 ; Broaddus, unpublished; Galli and Meinardi, 2011 ; Shermer, 2011 ; Airenti, 2015 ; Engvild, 2015 ; Dacey, 2017 ; Dink and Rips, 2017 ). The main difference is that I propose a tripartite approach for the psychological scope of mental anthropomorphism.…”

“…Richard Dawkins referred to it as “ purpose colored spectacles ” during his BBC special “The big question: Why are we here?” in 2006 1 . Within cognitive ethology, it is called “ Intuitive anthropomorphic bias ” (e.g., Dacey, 2017 ), and it helps to clarify how to better interpret non-human behavior. In the intersection between cognitive science and robotics, it is called “ Anthropomorphic projection ” (e.g., Airenti, 2015 ), where it helps to explore possible meaningful interactions between people and artificial intelligence agents.…”

“…A crucial step for achieving this level of interest is the recognition that anthropomorphism is more than just a jargon or category mistake ( Fisher, 1996 ). Rather, it is a result of a specific underlying cognitive bias that is somehow overly active (e.g., Broaddus, unpublished; Shermer, 2011 ; Airenti, 2015 ; Engvild, 2015 ; Dacey, 2017 ). Reiss (2017) argued that the notion that anthropomorphism is only a source of error that needs to be reconsidered.…”

“…Fisher (1996) affirmed that the charge of anthropomorphism oversimplifies a complex issue. Dacey (2017) stated that anthropomorphism-as-an-error underestimates its complexity and that in order to better understand and control it, we must treat it as a cognitive bias. Following in the steps of Piaget, Chomsky, Tversky, and Kahneman, the idea is to take seriously the mistake: as a window to explore and uncover new facets of the human mind.…”

O conceito Deus em crianças cristãs: o antropomorfismo e o uso das imagens religiosas

“…O antropomorfismo parece ser um fenômeno perceptivo universal, natural e inevitável, que consiste em uma atribuição equivocada de aspectos humanos para aquelas coisas que nos são mais caras, sendo também ligadas não a um processo reflexivo e deliberado, mas como resultado de uma falta de controle automático e majoritariamente inconsciente, sendo este considerado por muitos um viés psicológico (Dacey, 2017).…”