The ability to derive predictions for the outcomes of potential actions from observational data is one of the hallmarks of true causal reasoning. We present four learning experiments with deterministic and probabilistic data showing that people indeed make different predictions from causal models, whose parameters were learned in a purely observational learning phase, depending on whether learners believe that an event within the model has been merely observed (“seeing”) or was actively manipulated (“doing”). The predictions reflect sensitivity both to the structure of the causal models and to the size of their parameters. This competency is remarkable because the predictions for potential interventions were very different from the patterns that had actually been observed. Whereas associative and probabilistic theories fail, recent developments of causal Bayes net theories provide tools for modeling this competency. Causal knowledge underlies our ability to predict future events, to explain the occurrence of present events, and to achieve goals by means of actions. Thus, causal knowledge belongs to one of our most central cognitive competencies. However, the nature of causal knowledge has been debated. A number of philosophers and

Leading accounts of judgment under uncertainty evaluate performance within purely statistical frameworks, holding people to the standards of classical Bayesian (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) or frequentist (Gigerenzer & Hoffrage, 1995) norms. We argue that these frameworks have limited ability to explain the success and flexibility of people's real-world judgments, and propose an alternative normative framework based on Bayesian inferences over causal models. Deviations from traditional norms of judgment, such as "base-rate neglect", may then be explained in terms of a mismatch between the statistics given to people and the causal models they intuitively construct to support probabilistic reasoning. Four experiments show that when a clear mapping can be established from given statistics to the parameters of an intuitive causal model, people are more likely to use the statistics appropriately, and that when the classical and causal Bayesian norms differ in their prescriptions, people's judgments are more consistent with causal Bayesian norms.

A fundamental aspect of Hans Eysenck’s research was his emphasis upon using all the tools available to the researcher to study personality. This included correlational, experimental, physiological, and genetic approaches. 50 years after Cronbach’s call for the reunification of the two disciplines of psychology (Cronbach, 1957) and 40 years after Eysenck’s plea for experimental approaches to personality research (H. J. Eysenck, 1966), what is the status of the unification? Should personality researchers use experimental techniques? Do experimental techniques allow us to tease out causality, and are we communicating the advantages of combining experimental with multivariate correlational techniques? We review the progress made since Cronbach and Eysenck’s original papers and suggest that although it is still uncommon to find experimental studies of personality, psychology would benefit from the joint use of correlational and experimental approaches.

Explanation of why things happen is one of humans ’ most important cognitive operations. In everyday life, people are continually generating explanations of why other people behave the way they do, why they get sick, why computers or cars are not working properly, and of many other puzzling occurrences. More systematically, scientists develop theories to provide general explanations of physical phenomena such as why objects fall to earth, chemical phenomena such as why elements combine, biological phenomena such as why species evolve, medical phenomena such as why organisms develop diseases, and psychological phenomena such as why people sometimes make mental errors. This chapter reviews computational models of the cognitive processes that underlie these kinds of explanations of why events happen. It is not concerned with another sense of explanation that just means clarification, as when someone explains the U. S. constitution. The focus will be on scientific explanations, but more mundane examples will occasionally be used, on the grounds that the cognitive processes for explaining why events happen are much the same in everyday life and in science, although scientific explanations tend tobe more systematic and rigorous than everyday ones. In addition to providing a concise review of previous computational models of explanation, this chapter describes a new neural network model that shows how explanations can be performed by multimodal distributed representations.

Causal knowledge enables us to predict future events, to choose the right actions to achieve our goals, and to envision what would have happened if things had been different. Thus, it allows us to reason about observations, interventions and counterfactual possibilities.

Competence and performance in causal learning The dominant theoretical approach to causal learning postulates the acquisition of associative weights between cues and outcomes. These associative weights reflect the amount of covariation between the learning events. In the past few years, the associationist approach to causal learning has been criticized by a number of researchers

In multiple‐cue learning people acquire information about cue‐outcome relations and combine these into predictions or judgments. Previous studies claim that people can achieve high levels of performance without explicit knowledge of the task structure or insight into their own judgment policies. It has also been argued that people use a variety of suboptimal strategies to solve such tasks. In two experiments we re‐examined these conclusions by introducing novel measures of task knowledge and self‐insight, and using ‘rolling regression ’ methods to analyze individual learning. Participants successfully learned a four‐cue probabilistic environment and showed accurate knowledge of both the task structure and their own judgment processes. Learning analyses suggested that the apparent use of suboptimal strategies emerges from the incremental tracking of statistical contingencies in the environment. These findings have wide repercussions for the study of multicue learning in both normal and patient populations. Insight 3

Abstract — Complex systems involve the interaction between many processes that may or may not have causal relations to each other. In such systems, discovering causal relations can provide significant insights into the internals of the system and facilitate fault discovery and recovery procedures. In this paper, we provide a novel causality detection algorithm based on robust singular spectrum transform that combines features of autoregressive modeling and perturbation analysis. The proposed approach was evaluated using both synthetic and real data and was shown to provide superior performance to the standard linear Granger-causality test. It also provides a natural way to detect common causes that may give false positives in other causality tests. I.

Abstract: There are two main opposing schools of statistical reasoning, frequentist and Bayesian approaches. Until recent days, the frequentist or classical approach has dominated the scientific research, but Bayesianism has reappeared with a strong impulse that is starting to change the situation. Recently the controversy about the primacy of one of the two approaches seems to be unfinished at a philosophical level, but scientific practices are giving an increasingly important position to the Bayesian approach. This paper eludes philosophical debate to focus on the pragmatic point of view of scientists ’ day-to-day practices, in which Bayesian methodology is very useful. Several facts and operational values are described as the core-set for understanding the change.