1 / 15

1. Intelligence

Thinking, reasoning, and intelligence. 1. Intelligence. -first studied by Alfred Binet , later revised by Lewis Terman as the “Stanford- Binet ” test. -since then, many different types have cropped up (WAIS), as well as many different “types” of intelligence (emotional, musical, etc.).

emile
Download Presentation

1. Intelligence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Thinking, reasoning, and intelligence 1. Intelligence -first studied by Alfred Binet, later revised by Lewis Terman as the “Stanford-Binet” test -since then, many different types have cropped up (WAIS), as well as many different “types” of intelligence (emotional, musical, etc.) -contentious, since it is unclear if we’re talking about intelligence as opposed to just skills/abilities -also, are we testing intelligence, or just knowledge? Cultural influence? -predictive power?

  2. 2. Problem-solving 1. The “problem” -well versus ill defined 2. Measurement -RT, error patterns, verbal protocols 3. Blocks to problem solving a. Mental set b. Functional Fixedness c. Using Hill-climbing

  3. 2. Problem-solving Strategies to break the blocks: 1. Working backwards 2. Working via analogy 3. Incubation

  4. 2. Problem-solving Problem solving isn’t just seen in humans. Early work by Wolfgang Kohler on chimps, apes, found evidence of problem solving ability: tool building, formal problem solving (Kohler video)

  5. 3. Formal logical reasoning: -deductive versus inductive reasoning -two basic types of deductive reasoning task: conditional and syllogistic

  6. 3. Formal logical reasoning: Ways reasoning has been studied: 1. Conditional (propositional) reasoning: If p, then q. P. Conclusion: q? e.g.: If it is Thursday, then we have intro psych. It is Thursday. Therefore, we have intro psych.

  7. 3. Formal logical reasoning: Ways reasoning has been studied: 1. Conditional (propositional) reasoning: If it is Thursday, then we have intro psych. We don’t have psych. Therefore, it isn’t Thursday. Logical fallacies: If it is Thursday, then we have intro psych. It isn’t Thursday. Therefore, we don’t have intro psych? Not necessarily true, since the first statement says nothing about intro on days other than Thursday.

  8. 3. Formal logical reasoning: Ways reasoning has been studied: 1. Conditional (propositional) reasoning: Logical fallacies: If it is Thursday, then we have intro psych. We have intro psych. Therefore, it is Thursday? Again, not necessarily, for the same reason.

  9. 3. Formal logical reasoning: Ways reasoning has been studied: 1. Conditional (propositional) reasoning: Other common logical fallacies: Using anecdotal evidence Argumentum ad antiquitatem Argumentum ad ignorantiam Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after the event, therefore because of the event)

  10. 3. Formal logical reasoning: Syllogistic reasoning: Two premises, asked to evaluate a conclusion e.g.: Premise 1: All men are animals. Premise 2:Some animals are aggressive. Conclusion: Some men are aggressive. e.g.2: Premise 1: All students are bright. Premise 2: All bright people complete assignments on time. Conclusion: All students complete assignments on time. Most people agree with 1st, disagree with 2nd, but the 2nd is logically sound, 1st isn’t. Can evaluate using Venn diagrams: if you can come up with a diagram that fits the premises, but not the conclusion, then it is not a logical conclusion.

  11. 3. Formal logical reasoning: Syllogistic reasoning: Why are we terrible at this type of reasoning? 1) Rarely ever face one, so no practice at them 2) Belief bias 3) Misunderstanding the premises: if A=B, B=A not true here 4) Milieu of the question: all/all/all, none/none/none e.g.: No oranges are apples. No lemons are oranges. Therefore, no apples are lemons. Not a logical conclusion: OK, so we don’t use logic when reasoning. What DO we use?

  12. Heuristics: When asked to assess the truth of a statement or premise, we tend to resort to heuristics to help us. 1) Availability heuristic 2) Representativeness heuristic 3) Confirmation bias The problem is, we’re overconfident in our opinions, because: a) confirming evidence is readily available (availability heuristic), and b) we actively avoid disconfirming evidence (confirmation bias).

  13. These biases (and others) are partly why pseudoscientific claims are still believed by many. Examples: homeopathy, (anecdotal evidence, illusory correlation, confirmation bias) Reiki, (illusory correlation, confirmation bias, Emily Rosa’s research) ESP, (confirmation bias, availability, probability misunderstanding) -confirmation bias in terms of only remembering the hits, forgetting misses or false alarms -e.g. dreaming of the future, telling when someone calls, etc.etc.

  14. The problem is, our sensory systems are designed to seek out order, and often “see” it, even in random events. Example: speech processors. Flexibility and “guesswork” is necessary, and usually works. But:

  15. -the reasons these people will continue to make money: 1) we all want to believe they’re really doing it 2) Non-scientists tend to believe anecdotal evidence instead of scientific findings 3) We are terrible at recognizing randomness when faced with it, and are equally bad at judging probabilities (birthday example) 4) We will ignore or forget most of the negative evidence anyway

More Related