Abstract

Much of the time, human beings seem to rely on habits. Habits are learned behaviours directly elicited by context cues, and insensitive to short-term changes in goals: therefore they are sometimes irrational. But even where habitual responses are rational (contributing to current goal fulfillment), it can seem as if they are nevertheless not done for reasons. For, on a common understanding of habitual behaviour, agents’ intentions do not play any role in the coming about of such responses. This paper discusses under what conditions we can say that habitual responses are, after all, done for reasons. We show how the idea that habitual behaviour cannot be understood as ‘acting for reasons’ stems from a widely but often implicitly held theoretical framework: the causal theory of action. We then propose an alternative, Anscombean understanding of intentional action, which can account for habitual responses being done for reasons.

Highlights

  • IntroductionWe usually do not need much deliberation in order to get things done

  • In our everyday lives, we usually do not need much deliberation in order to get things done

  • Habitual behaviour is generally seen as the default mode of responding (Aarts and Dijksterhuis 2000; Arpaly 2000; Bargh and Chartrand 1999; Wood et al 2014): we rely on our habits unless the situation requires us to overrule them by explicit deliberation and self-control

Read more

Summary

Introduction

We usually do not need much deliberation in order to get things done. Habitual behaviour is generally seen as the default mode of responding (Aarts and Dijksterhuis 2000; Arpaly 2000; Bargh and Chartrand 1999; Wood et al 2014): we rely on our habits unless the situation requires us to overrule them by explicit deliberation and self-control This interpretation builds on familiar dual-process models of cognition of the ‘default-interventionist’ kind, according to which cognition generally operates via Type 1 processes (that are automatic in the sense of not requiring working memory) unless the agent responds to situational demands by initiating cognitively more ‘expensive’ Type 2 processing (demanding working memory and some form of cognitive decoupling, (Evans and Stanovich 2013)). We will proceed to develop an alternative understanding of intentional action, and show how such a perspective can account for habitual responses being done for reasons

Habitual Behaviour
Prior Attempts to Create Room for Habitual Actions
Acting for Reasons and the Question ‘Why’
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call