Lecture notes Introductory Psychology and Brain &
Cognition: Part A - INTERIM 2
Lecture 9: CH10 Solving problems: Reasoning and Intelligence - 30/09/2024
FOCUS 1: how would you construct a test to assess a person’s ability to perceive
analogies?
Analogies: similarity in behavior, function, or relationship between entities or
situations like physicality. E.g. like: man - woman; boy - ?? → girl.
One can use the knowledge of the relation between the first two elements in
the problem to complete the analogy for a new item. One must understand the
similarity between men and women and boys and girls if one is to solve the
above analogy.
Test that can be used to measure fluid intelligence are Raven’s problems:
Knowledge of word meaning is not necessary, therefore intelligence can still
be tested.
FOCUS 2: What is some evidence concerning the usefulness of analogies in scientific
reasoning?
Scientists often attempt to understand and explain natural phenomena by thinking of
analogies to other phenomena that are better understood. They use analogies regularly to
make sense of new findings and to generate new hypotheses.
FOCUS 3: How are analogies useful in judicial and political reasoning? What distinguishes a
useful analogy from a misleading one?
The stronger your analogy, the more useful and convincing it can be.
How to help with learning analogies:
1. Provide opportunities to make comparisons between previously and newly learned
concepts.
2. Present source and target analogies simultaneously so that the student may visualize
their related ways.
3. Provide additional cues (gestures), that move between the 2 contexts being
compared to highlight analogical mappings.
4. Highlight both the similarities and differences between sources and targets. If the
difference can lead to an incorrect inference, indicate explicitly where the analogy
“breaks down.”
5. Use relational language to facilitate attention to shared relationships.
Research: The anterior left inferior prefrontal cortex was activated when making semantic
decisions, but multiple areas of the prefrontal cortex were activated when making analogical
decisions. Subsequent research demonstrated that extensive training in analogical
reasoning (i.e., a preparatory course for Law School tests that emphasized reasoning skills)
resulted in changes in the distribution of white matter (mostly myelinated axons) connecting
frontal cortices and in the frontal and parietal lobes.
1
,FOCUS 4: What is inductive reasoning, and why is it also called hypothesis construction?
Why is reasoning by analogy inductive?
Inductive reasoning: the attempt to infer some new principle or proposition from
observations or facts that serve as clues. From specific to general, can always be refuted by
a ‘special’ finding: I have seen 1 white swan, therefore all swans are white.
Induction is also called hypothesis construction because the inferred proposition is at best an
educated guess, not a necessary conclusion from the available evidence.
All the examples of reasoning by use of analogies are also examples of inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is reasoning that is founded on perceived analogies or other similarities.
The evidence from which one induces a conclusion is a set of past experiences that are in
some way similar to one another or to the experience one is trying to explain or predict.
FOCUS 5: What kinds of false inferences are likely to result from the availability bias?
Availability bias: Estimate based on the availability of examples. When we reason, we tend
to rely too strongly on information that is readily available to us and to ignore less available
information.
Professional risk: establishing diagnoses right after having seen a few clients with certain
diagnoses, doctors are more likely to misdiagnose other patients.
When asked to estimate the percentage of people who die from various causes, most people
overestimate causes that have recently been emphasized in the media, such as terrorism,
murders, and airplane accidents, and underestimate less-publicized but much more frequent
causes, such as heart disease and traffic accidents
FOCUS 6: What are two different ways by which researchers have demonstrated the
confirmation bias?
Confirmation bias:
- Confirm hypothesis
- Ignore or refute proof against the hypothesis
Demonstration of confirmation bias:
1. Wason selection task: Game in which the aim was to discover the
experimenter’s rule for sequencing numbers. Sequence presented of
three numbers, (6 8 10), and asked the subject to guess the rule.
Then, the subject’s task was to test the rule by proposing a new
sequence of three numbers to which the experimenter would
respond yes or no, depending on whether the sequence fit the rule.
Wason found that subjects chose to generate sequences consistent
with, rather than inconsistent with, their current hypotheses and
quickly became confident that their hypotheses were correct, even
when they were not. E.g. after hypothesizing that the rule was even
numbers increasing by twos, a person would, propose sequences consistent with that rule (2
4 6 or 14 16 18) and after getting a ‘yes’, announce confidently that the initial hypothesis was
correct. Such persons never discovered that the experimenter’s actual rule was any
increasing sequence of numbers, so 7 9 11 would have also been correct.
2
, 2.Skov & Sherman: subjects were asked to interview another person to discover something
about that individual’s personality. Typically, some were asked to assess the hypothesis that
the person is an extravert or introvert. The main finding was that subjects usually asked
questions for which a yes answer would be consistent with the hypothesis they were testing.
Given the extravert hypothesis, they tended to ask such questions as “Do you like to meet
new people?” This bias, coupled with the natural tendency of interviewees to respond to all
such questions in the affirmative, gave most subjects confidence in the initial hypothesis,
regardless of which hypothesis that was or whom they had interviewed.
FOCUS 7: How does a die-tossing game demonstrate the predictable-world bias?
Predictable-world bias: Tendency to believe that events are more predictable than they
actually are. We are so strongly predisposed to find order in our world that we are inclined to
“see” or anticipate order even where it doesn’t exist. Superstitions often arise because
people fail to realize that coincidences are often just coincidences.
Some great event happens to a man when he is wearing his green shirt and suddenly the
green shirt becomes his “lucky” shirt.
Die-tossing game: Imagine playing a game with a die that has 4 red sides and 2 green
sides. You are asked to guess whether the die will come up red or green. Over the long run,
the die is going to come up red 2/3 of the trials. Each throw of the die is independent of
every other throw. No matter what occurred on the previous throw, or the previous 10 throws,
the probability that the next throw will come up red is two chances in three. Thus, the best
strategy is to guess red on every trial. By taking that strategy you will, over the long run, win
on about two-thirds of the trials. That strategy is called maximizing.
Most players play according to a matching strategy; they vary their guesses over trials in a
way that matches the probability that red and green will show. Thus, in the game just
described, they guess red on roughly 2/3 of the trials and green on the other 1/3. They know
that about 2/3 of the throws will be red and 1/3 will be green, and they behave as if they can
predict which ones will be red and which ones will be green. But in reality they can’t predict
that, so the result is that they win less money over the long run than they would if they had
simply guessed red on every trial.
Researchers have found that compulsive gamblers are especially prone to this bias. They
act as if they can beat the odds, despite all evidence to the contrary and even if they
consciously know that they cannot.
FOCUS 8: How does deductive reasoning differ from inductive reasoning? How is it
illustrated by series problems and syllogisms?
Reasoning:
1. Deductive reasoning: derive logically the consequences that must be true if certain
premises are accepted as true → From general to specific, valid, or invalid
2. Inductive reasoning: Reasoned guesswork
→ From specific to general, can always be refuted by a ‘special’ finding.
Therefore, conclusion is never certain, though it sometimes is highly predictable
3
Cognition: Part A - INTERIM 2
Lecture 9: CH10 Solving problems: Reasoning and Intelligence - 30/09/2024
FOCUS 1: how would you construct a test to assess a person’s ability to perceive
analogies?
Analogies: similarity in behavior, function, or relationship between entities or
situations like physicality. E.g. like: man - woman; boy - ?? → girl.
One can use the knowledge of the relation between the first two elements in
the problem to complete the analogy for a new item. One must understand the
similarity between men and women and boys and girls if one is to solve the
above analogy.
Test that can be used to measure fluid intelligence are Raven’s problems:
Knowledge of word meaning is not necessary, therefore intelligence can still
be tested.
FOCUS 2: What is some evidence concerning the usefulness of analogies in scientific
reasoning?
Scientists often attempt to understand and explain natural phenomena by thinking of
analogies to other phenomena that are better understood. They use analogies regularly to
make sense of new findings and to generate new hypotheses.
FOCUS 3: How are analogies useful in judicial and political reasoning? What distinguishes a
useful analogy from a misleading one?
The stronger your analogy, the more useful and convincing it can be.
How to help with learning analogies:
1. Provide opportunities to make comparisons between previously and newly learned
concepts.
2. Present source and target analogies simultaneously so that the student may visualize
their related ways.
3. Provide additional cues (gestures), that move between the 2 contexts being
compared to highlight analogical mappings.
4. Highlight both the similarities and differences between sources and targets. If the
difference can lead to an incorrect inference, indicate explicitly where the analogy
“breaks down.”
5. Use relational language to facilitate attention to shared relationships.
Research: The anterior left inferior prefrontal cortex was activated when making semantic
decisions, but multiple areas of the prefrontal cortex were activated when making analogical
decisions. Subsequent research demonstrated that extensive training in analogical
reasoning (i.e., a preparatory course for Law School tests that emphasized reasoning skills)
resulted in changes in the distribution of white matter (mostly myelinated axons) connecting
frontal cortices and in the frontal and parietal lobes.
1
,FOCUS 4: What is inductive reasoning, and why is it also called hypothesis construction?
Why is reasoning by analogy inductive?
Inductive reasoning: the attempt to infer some new principle or proposition from
observations or facts that serve as clues. From specific to general, can always be refuted by
a ‘special’ finding: I have seen 1 white swan, therefore all swans are white.
Induction is also called hypothesis construction because the inferred proposition is at best an
educated guess, not a necessary conclusion from the available evidence.
All the examples of reasoning by use of analogies are also examples of inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is reasoning that is founded on perceived analogies or other similarities.
The evidence from which one induces a conclusion is a set of past experiences that are in
some way similar to one another or to the experience one is trying to explain or predict.
FOCUS 5: What kinds of false inferences are likely to result from the availability bias?
Availability bias: Estimate based on the availability of examples. When we reason, we tend
to rely too strongly on information that is readily available to us and to ignore less available
information.
Professional risk: establishing diagnoses right after having seen a few clients with certain
diagnoses, doctors are more likely to misdiagnose other patients.
When asked to estimate the percentage of people who die from various causes, most people
overestimate causes that have recently been emphasized in the media, such as terrorism,
murders, and airplane accidents, and underestimate less-publicized but much more frequent
causes, such as heart disease and traffic accidents
FOCUS 6: What are two different ways by which researchers have demonstrated the
confirmation bias?
Confirmation bias:
- Confirm hypothesis
- Ignore or refute proof against the hypothesis
Demonstration of confirmation bias:
1. Wason selection task: Game in which the aim was to discover the
experimenter’s rule for sequencing numbers. Sequence presented of
three numbers, (6 8 10), and asked the subject to guess the rule.
Then, the subject’s task was to test the rule by proposing a new
sequence of three numbers to which the experimenter would
respond yes or no, depending on whether the sequence fit the rule.
Wason found that subjects chose to generate sequences consistent
with, rather than inconsistent with, their current hypotheses and
quickly became confident that their hypotheses were correct, even
when they were not. E.g. after hypothesizing that the rule was even
numbers increasing by twos, a person would, propose sequences consistent with that rule (2
4 6 or 14 16 18) and after getting a ‘yes’, announce confidently that the initial hypothesis was
correct. Such persons never discovered that the experimenter’s actual rule was any
increasing sequence of numbers, so 7 9 11 would have also been correct.
2
, 2.Skov & Sherman: subjects were asked to interview another person to discover something
about that individual’s personality. Typically, some were asked to assess the hypothesis that
the person is an extravert or introvert. The main finding was that subjects usually asked
questions for which a yes answer would be consistent with the hypothesis they were testing.
Given the extravert hypothesis, they tended to ask such questions as “Do you like to meet
new people?” This bias, coupled with the natural tendency of interviewees to respond to all
such questions in the affirmative, gave most subjects confidence in the initial hypothesis,
regardless of which hypothesis that was or whom they had interviewed.
FOCUS 7: How does a die-tossing game demonstrate the predictable-world bias?
Predictable-world bias: Tendency to believe that events are more predictable than they
actually are. We are so strongly predisposed to find order in our world that we are inclined to
“see” or anticipate order even where it doesn’t exist. Superstitions often arise because
people fail to realize that coincidences are often just coincidences.
Some great event happens to a man when he is wearing his green shirt and suddenly the
green shirt becomes his “lucky” shirt.
Die-tossing game: Imagine playing a game with a die that has 4 red sides and 2 green
sides. You are asked to guess whether the die will come up red or green. Over the long run,
the die is going to come up red 2/3 of the trials. Each throw of the die is independent of
every other throw. No matter what occurred on the previous throw, or the previous 10 throws,
the probability that the next throw will come up red is two chances in three. Thus, the best
strategy is to guess red on every trial. By taking that strategy you will, over the long run, win
on about two-thirds of the trials. That strategy is called maximizing.
Most players play according to a matching strategy; they vary their guesses over trials in a
way that matches the probability that red and green will show. Thus, in the game just
described, they guess red on roughly 2/3 of the trials and green on the other 1/3. They know
that about 2/3 of the throws will be red and 1/3 will be green, and they behave as if they can
predict which ones will be red and which ones will be green. But in reality they can’t predict
that, so the result is that they win less money over the long run than they would if they had
simply guessed red on every trial.
Researchers have found that compulsive gamblers are especially prone to this bias. They
act as if they can beat the odds, despite all evidence to the contrary and even if they
consciously know that they cannot.
FOCUS 8: How does deductive reasoning differ from inductive reasoning? How is it
illustrated by series problems and syllogisms?
Reasoning:
1. Deductive reasoning: derive logically the consequences that must be true if certain
premises are accepted as true → From general to specific, valid, or invalid
2. Inductive reasoning: Reasoned guesswork
→ From specific to general, can always be refuted by a ‘special’ finding.
Therefore, conclusion is never certain, though it sometimes is highly predictable
3
