This belief that outcomes could have been predicted earlier is an example of a cognitive bias called Hindsight bias.
<h3><u>Explanation:</u></h3>
Hindsight bias is defined as the tendency in people to overestimate their own ability to predict an outcome in the future, that has nearly no chance of being predicted correctly. It is an extensively used term in psychology and fits the description given by question completely.
This is quite common and can be explained better by an example like when an outcome happens and a person says “I Knew It”, thus in this case, creating a tendency in them that they could’ve predicted the outcome which is simply chance and not a prediction at all.
I think it came from the Muslim scientist if I remember right from what I just learned
<span>During the adolescent stages in life, things seem so much bigger than they are. You can view that in the positive light or the negative to be honest. As a child, you see your siblings as another human who lives in your home with you, eats the same food, breathes the same air, loves the same parents as you. You fight over the remote control and wrestle with one another over a small toy you both insisted on needing at the same time. Within the next breath, you sit next to them and talk about your day, ask them to defend you from a so called friend who uses your kindness for weakness as your sibling reminds you of why you are so imortant in this life and deserve to be noticed for that... Swingsets, bike rides to the store, a companion who is always there to listen about how mom and dad "just aren't fair!"
Fast forward to 30 years old. Life interferes with the time spent together, the playtime becomes few and far between and the bike rides are a distant memory. The things that stay though...those are very similar to my first statements on childhood with them. The love, support and time spent doesn't need to disapear. It turns into a mature type of love. You call one another every few days to check in. Make a coffee date to catch up on her latest life experience and remind them that you are always here. Those bike rides though? Now you can take them together with your own children.</span>
Answer:
The answer is - Einhorn decides not to steal according to the pre-conventional level where as Finkle decides not to steal according to the conventional level
Explanation:
Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development is related to cognitive development and it states that there are three levels of moral thinking which we progress through that build on our cognitive development. It also proposes that there are reasoning behind moral choices.
There are three levels of moral development according to Lawrence Kohlberg. They are;
- The Pre-conventional Level- Children focus obeying external authority or higher authority figures such as parents or teachers because the Child's moral sense is yet to internalize with the society's conventions as regards what is right or wrong. Hence they focus on the consequences of their actions if they obey authority figures.
- The Conventional Level- In this level the child's moral sense is bounded by societal and personal relationships as they try to maintain positive relationships and societal order by accepting rules of authority figures.
- The Post-conventional Level -In this level people now believe that some laws are prejudiced and should be discarded.
In this scenario, Einhorn decides not to steal according to the pr conventional level because he is afraid of getting caught and punished. Finkle on the other hand decides not to steal because it i wrong and he wants to act in a way he would want others to act, this is the conventional level because he knows his right from wrong and is trying to maintain societal order by not doing what he would not want others to do.
