Unit 7.2 Cognition: Thinking and Problem Solving

Fact #1

• The brain is awesome – and we know nothing about it

No, but really… there are reasons she will be forever alone.

Girl’s got some moves?

Really… really annoying.

How is all that possible – and you can speak and pick up a pencil “…without

thinking about it?”

The Cognitive Niche – Steven Pinker (Harvard)

• Three key ideas to note1. Computation2. Evolution – (genetic survival)3. Specialization

1. Computation

• The function of the brain is information processing

• Problem: What is intelligence, and how can a hunk of matter (such as a brain) achieve it?

• Intelligence = pursuit of goals by inference (knowledge of logic, statistics and cause/effect)

• Romeo and Juliet:– Goal = “touch Juliet’s lips”

Romeo’s Inference =

“ If C is between A and B, they cannot touch. If A goes over C, C is no longer between A and B. Therefore, to touch Juliet’s lips, go over the wall…”

How computation works in the brain:

• Goals and knowledge are information: they are represented as patterns in bits of matter in the system.

• System is designed so that one representation causes another, and the changes mirror the laws of logical or statistical inference

In other words…

• Romeo’s going to go over the wall because his brain made it possible due to his intellectually based cognition, or his inference

Evolution and Specialization

2. Evolution: already covered in Behavior Genetics chapter

• What’s the argument for evolution in how our brains work?

3. Specialization: a “theory of everything” doesn’t exist

• Specific parts of the body have specific functions that have evolved over time

In other words…

• We have specialization because every different type of problem requires a different tool for solving

– Cognition problem solving?– Heart-based problem solving?– Nervous system based problem solving

The Limits of Human Intuition

A man bought a horse for $60 and sold it for $70. Then he bought the same horse back for $80 and again sold it, for $90. How much money did he make in the horse business?

Super simple, right?• Most common answer: $10

– You actually make $20• How do you do it?• Comparing total amount paid out with total

amount taken in (160-140=20)• Most American college students answer

incorrectly• Most German banking executives get it wrong

Let’s try again

A man bought a horse for $60 and sold it for $70. Then he bought firewood for $80 and then sold it, for $90. How much money did he make?

Information processing model

• Organize items into mental groupings– Called concepts

• Form concepts from prototypes– Representative of the most typical member of a

category

• Complex concepts = schemas

How do you give someone directions?What mental processes do you go through?

Let’s try some more logic puzzles

All members of the cabinet are thieves. No composer is a member of the cabinet.

What conclusion can you draw? Is there one?

• Yes! There is a valid conclusion– Some thieves are not composers or there are

thieves who are not composers

How about another…

Some archaeologists, biologists, and chess players are in a room. None of the archaeologists are biologists. All of the biologists are chess players. What follows? What conclusions can you draw?

• Pinker found that most people will say that none of the archaeologists are chess players – not valid

• What is valid is to say that some chess players are not archaeologists.

One more… for extra creditIf you love, then you suffer when your loved ones suffer. If you hate, then you

suffer when your enemies flourish. So, since you must love or hate, either you suffer when your loved ones suffer or you suffer when your enemies flourish.

• Inductive or deductive?

• If you love, then you suffer when your loved ones suffer• If you hate, then you suffer when your enemies flourish• Since you must love or hate

– You suffer when your loved ones suffer or you suffer when your enemies flourish.

– Assuming all premises are true, in their own reality without any other options available, this is best constructed as a deductive argument because the conclusion cannot be false based on the premises.