COURSE
Introductory
Psychology
and Cognition
Ψ
UvA
Month 2
, 10. solving problems: reasoning and intelligence
our memory of the past is useful to the degree that it helps us to understand and to deal adaptively with the present
and the future
• the process = reasoning
• capacity to reason = intelligence
analogies and induction = depend explicitly on identifying similarities
WE REASON LARGELY BY PERCEIVING SIMILARITIES BETWEEN NEW EVENTS AND FAMILIAR ONES
analogy = any perceived similarity between otherwise different objects, actions, events or situations
= similarity in behaviour function, or relationship between entities or situations that are in other aspects
quite different from each other
= based on similarity relations
• success on analogical reasoning is highly dependent on the similarity between objects
• if someone is not familiar with one set of relations, the similarity with other relationship will not be useful
• analogies in scientific reasoning: natural selection vs selective breeding, brain/computer
• analytical thinking: analogies and scepticism
• used in judicial and political reasoning and persuasion
• reasoning on the basis of analogies: useful to the degree that the structural relationships in the analogy hold
true
• neurological basis for analogical reasoning
o multiple areas of prefrontal cortex
o brain areas involved with integration of info (seems to be true for both children and adults), but
patterns of brain activation change with age (cognition & brain structures)
• people do not readily use analogies to solve novel problems → formal instruction on analogical reasoning
could provide educational benefits
inductive reasoning = the attempt to infer a new principle or proposition from observations or facts serving as
clues; a bottom-up approach
= hypothesis construction (the inferred guess is at best an educated guess)
• true scientific reasoning – a form of scientific reasoning
• founded on perceived analogies or other similarities: evidence on which we base conclusions = a set of past
experiences that are in some way similar to one another or to experience one is trying to explain / predict
• biases involved (primarily when thinking ‘fast’, unconsciously):
o the availability bias = tendency to rely strongly on info that is readily available/availability of examples
▪ serious negative consequences in a doctor’s office: establishing diagnoses right after having
seen clients with certain diagnoses
▪ probability of rare events gets overestimated
o confirmation bias = tendency to confirm rather than disconfirm the current hypotheses
▪ ‘one can never prove that a hypothesis is correct, but one can prove that it is incorrect’
▪ not related to intelligence
▪ serious negative consequences in a doctor’s office
▪ e.g. discovering the experimenter’s rule or interview to find out extravertism
▪ e.g. Wason card selection task is easier when system 1 helps us solve the task; social
contract
o predictable-world bias = tendency to see order even when it does not exist = tendency to engage in
inductive reasoning even in situations where it is pointless as the relationship in question is random
▪ e.g. superstitions and maximising or matching (biased) strategy in throwing dice and gambling
▪ most obvious in games of pure chance
▪ e.g. answering multiple choice questions
▪ advantage: a prompt to seek order and make prediction where order exists
,how people reason: deduction and insight
DEDUCTION AND INSIGHT CONTRIBUTE TO PROBLEM-SOLVING ABILITY
deductive reasoning = deriving logically the consequences that must be true if certain premises are accepted as
true; a top-down approach
• logical proof (if done correctly)
• all of mathematics
• testing deduction:
o series problems (require the organisation of items into a series on the basis of a set of comparison
statements and then conclusion not contained in any statement)
o syllogisms (presents a major premise and a minor premise that one must combine mentally to see
if a particular conclusion is true/false/indeterminate
• the ‘formal operational’ view on deductive reasoning: ‘problems are solved my ‘mental algebra’ or ‘formal
logic’ → rejected because we seem to solve d. problems by reflecting on our real-world knowledge; people
who know the laws of logic well rarely apply them in daily life
• possible bias: the tendency to rely on real-world knowledge can overwhelm our deductive-reasoning ability;
to solve some syllogisms, we must suppress our real-world knowledge
• d. reasoning problems are easier to solve when formulated in the form of a social contract which reflects
deontic reasoning (about what one may/should/ought to do)
insight problems: unsolvable until looked at in a way different from the usual way; require ‘thinking out of the box’
• their solution depends on abandoning a well-established habit of perception or thought (mental set), and
then viewing the problem in a different way
• often entail the mix of inductive and deductive reasoning
• functional fixedness = the failure to see an object as having a function other than its usual one
o helps: not fixating on surface properties
o may stem from design stance: the fact that tools were manufactured by people for some purpose
o knowing what the tool is for and using it exclusively for that purpose → increased efficiency but
lower flexibility (e.g. in comparison to other primates)
• e.g. the candle problem
• 1st step: the realisation that the old method does not work and that a new one must be found
• mental capacities to solve insight problems1: different from those to solve d. reasoning problems2
1 creativity, incubation period (unconsciously reorganizing the material related to the problem while
consciously doing and thinking about something different); ‘fast’ mental processes
unconscious priming (the activation of a mental concept to a level that does not reach
consciousness but that still makes the concept more available for forming connections to other
concepts)
2 working memory capacity, conscious attention (‘slow’ thinking)
• a happy mood improves performance on insight problems
o broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions: the building of ideas and knowledge during
periods of safety and happiness is adaptive – those ideas may satisfy future needs and prevent future
emergencies; whereas a moment of emergency = a time for action proven the be effective
o it may as well be playfulness that makes us view objects in a different way
cross-cultural differences in perception and reasoning
• non-Westerners
o often find it absurd to respond to questions outside the realm of concrete experiences and to
answer logic questions in practical, functional terms1
o East Asians perceive and reason more holistically, focusing on the whole scene and the
interrelationship among its objects; they divide their attention
• Westerners
, o tend to sort things by taxonomic category1
o tend to focus and remember the more prominent individual objects of the scene as separate entities,
abstracted from their background; they focus their attention
• children over the world seem to begin life with a ‘relational/holistic’ bias
the practice and theory of intelligence testing
EFFORTS TO CHARACTERIZE AND MEASURE INTELLIGENCE HAVE PRACTICAL AND THEIRETICAL GOALS
intelligence = the variable capacity that underlies individual differences in reasoning, solving problems, and acquiring
new knowledge
a culture’s definition of intelligence is a reflection of what that cultures values in a human being
Binet: ‘intelligence is a loose set of higher-order mental abilities that can be increased by schooling’; his tests used
school-related questions and problems
• most modern intelligence tests are rooted in Binet’s approach and use a variety of verbal and nonverbal
subtests
• validity: IQ scores correlate moderately well with school grades and job performance
Spearman: ‘general intelligence (g) is a single factor that contributes to all types of mental performance’
Cattell: ‘g consists of 2 factors: fluid and crystallized intelligence’
modern measures of mental quickness and executive functions: correlate significantly with IQ
Sternberg: ‘efficiency of mental self-government accounts for individual differences in intelligence’
general intelligence: selected for in human evolution perhaps because it helps us deal with novel problems
IQ = abstract reasoning, problem solving, ability to acquire knowledge
• calculated based on scores in variety of subtests
o verbal tests, skills
• positive correlations with
o academic success (.3 to .7)
o career success (.2 to .6)
▪ the more challenging jobs, the stronger the correlation)
• negative correlations with
• gives a rough idea about how the person will do at school and at work
measuring intelligence (modern IQ test)
• Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th edition (WAIS-IV)
• Groninger Intelligentie Test-2 (GIT-2) → in NL
in order to make an intelligence test: a (large) random sample takes the test
• making the test normative → the avg group score) by definition) = 100
• the distribution of IQ should have a bell-curve shape
genetic and environmental contributions to intelligence: no simple answers
QUESTION NOT TO ASK: to what extent is the IQ score determined by genes/environment?
QUESTION TO ASK: can variability in IQ in exact population be attributed to differences in genes (heritability) or
environment?
• analogy of an inflated balloon: its thickness is determined both by the rubber thickness and the air inside the
balloon
ways to find out the contributions of genes to IQ
• identical twins: 100% same genes
1the difference in perception and reasoning may be the results of preference rather that ability; they are not the result of genetic differences,
more likely the ancient philosophies that underlie the cultures
Introductory
Psychology
and Cognition
Ψ
UvA
Month 2
, 10. solving problems: reasoning and intelligence
our memory of the past is useful to the degree that it helps us to understand and to deal adaptively with the present
and the future
• the process = reasoning
• capacity to reason = intelligence
analogies and induction = depend explicitly on identifying similarities
WE REASON LARGELY BY PERCEIVING SIMILARITIES BETWEEN NEW EVENTS AND FAMILIAR ONES
analogy = any perceived similarity between otherwise different objects, actions, events or situations
= similarity in behaviour function, or relationship between entities or situations that are in other aspects
quite different from each other
= based on similarity relations
• success on analogical reasoning is highly dependent on the similarity between objects
• if someone is not familiar with one set of relations, the similarity with other relationship will not be useful
• analogies in scientific reasoning: natural selection vs selective breeding, brain/computer
• analytical thinking: analogies and scepticism
• used in judicial and political reasoning and persuasion
• reasoning on the basis of analogies: useful to the degree that the structural relationships in the analogy hold
true
• neurological basis for analogical reasoning
o multiple areas of prefrontal cortex
o brain areas involved with integration of info (seems to be true for both children and adults), but
patterns of brain activation change with age (cognition & brain structures)
• people do not readily use analogies to solve novel problems → formal instruction on analogical reasoning
could provide educational benefits
inductive reasoning = the attempt to infer a new principle or proposition from observations or facts serving as
clues; a bottom-up approach
= hypothesis construction (the inferred guess is at best an educated guess)
• true scientific reasoning – a form of scientific reasoning
• founded on perceived analogies or other similarities: evidence on which we base conclusions = a set of past
experiences that are in some way similar to one another or to experience one is trying to explain / predict
• biases involved (primarily when thinking ‘fast’, unconsciously):
o the availability bias = tendency to rely strongly on info that is readily available/availability of examples
▪ serious negative consequences in a doctor’s office: establishing diagnoses right after having
seen clients with certain diagnoses
▪ probability of rare events gets overestimated
o confirmation bias = tendency to confirm rather than disconfirm the current hypotheses
▪ ‘one can never prove that a hypothesis is correct, but one can prove that it is incorrect’
▪ not related to intelligence
▪ serious negative consequences in a doctor’s office
▪ e.g. discovering the experimenter’s rule or interview to find out extravertism
▪ e.g. Wason card selection task is easier when system 1 helps us solve the task; social
contract
o predictable-world bias = tendency to see order even when it does not exist = tendency to engage in
inductive reasoning even in situations where it is pointless as the relationship in question is random
▪ e.g. superstitions and maximising or matching (biased) strategy in throwing dice and gambling
▪ most obvious in games of pure chance
▪ e.g. answering multiple choice questions
▪ advantage: a prompt to seek order and make prediction where order exists
,how people reason: deduction and insight
DEDUCTION AND INSIGHT CONTRIBUTE TO PROBLEM-SOLVING ABILITY
deductive reasoning = deriving logically the consequences that must be true if certain premises are accepted as
true; a top-down approach
• logical proof (if done correctly)
• all of mathematics
• testing deduction:
o series problems (require the organisation of items into a series on the basis of a set of comparison
statements and then conclusion not contained in any statement)
o syllogisms (presents a major premise and a minor premise that one must combine mentally to see
if a particular conclusion is true/false/indeterminate
• the ‘formal operational’ view on deductive reasoning: ‘problems are solved my ‘mental algebra’ or ‘formal
logic’ → rejected because we seem to solve d. problems by reflecting on our real-world knowledge; people
who know the laws of logic well rarely apply them in daily life
• possible bias: the tendency to rely on real-world knowledge can overwhelm our deductive-reasoning ability;
to solve some syllogisms, we must suppress our real-world knowledge
• d. reasoning problems are easier to solve when formulated in the form of a social contract which reflects
deontic reasoning (about what one may/should/ought to do)
insight problems: unsolvable until looked at in a way different from the usual way; require ‘thinking out of the box’
• their solution depends on abandoning a well-established habit of perception or thought (mental set), and
then viewing the problem in a different way
• often entail the mix of inductive and deductive reasoning
• functional fixedness = the failure to see an object as having a function other than its usual one
o helps: not fixating on surface properties
o may stem from design stance: the fact that tools were manufactured by people for some purpose
o knowing what the tool is for and using it exclusively for that purpose → increased efficiency but
lower flexibility (e.g. in comparison to other primates)
• e.g. the candle problem
• 1st step: the realisation that the old method does not work and that a new one must be found
• mental capacities to solve insight problems1: different from those to solve d. reasoning problems2
1 creativity, incubation period (unconsciously reorganizing the material related to the problem while
consciously doing and thinking about something different); ‘fast’ mental processes
unconscious priming (the activation of a mental concept to a level that does not reach
consciousness but that still makes the concept more available for forming connections to other
concepts)
2 working memory capacity, conscious attention (‘slow’ thinking)
• a happy mood improves performance on insight problems
o broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions: the building of ideas and knowledge during
periods of safety and happiness is adaptive – those ideas may satisfy future needs and prevent future
emergencies; whereas a moment of emergency = a time for action proven the be effective
o it may as well be playfulness that makes us view objects in a different way
cross-cultural differences in perception and reasoning
• non-Westerners
o often find it absurd to respond to questions outside the realm of concrete experiences and to
answer logic questions in practical, functional terms1
o East Asians perceive and reason more holistically, focusing on the whole scene and the
interrelationship among its objects; they divide their attention
• Westerners
, o tend to sort things by taxonomic category1
o tend to focus and remember the more prominent individual objects of the scene as separate entities,
abstracted from their background; they focus their attention
• children over the world seem to begin life with a ‘relational/holistic’ bias
the practice and theory of intelligence testing
EFFORTS TO CHARACTERIZE AND MEASURE INTELLIGENCE HAVE PRACTICAL AND THEIRETICAL GOALS
intelligence = the variable capacity that underlies individual differences in reasoning, solving problems, and acquiring
new knowledge
a culture’s definition of intelligence is a reflection of what that cultures values in a human being
Binet: ‘intelligence is a loose set of higher-order mental abilities that can be increased by schooling’; his tests used
school-related questions and problems
• most modern intelligence tests are rooted in Binet’s approach and use a variety of verbal and nonverbal
subtests
• validity: IQ scores correlate moderately well with school grades and job performance
Spearman: ‘general intelligence (g) is a single factor that contributes to all types of mental performance’
Cattell: ‘g consists of 2 factors: fluid and crystallized intelligence’
modern measures of mental quickness and executive functions: correlate significantly with IQ
Sternberg: ‘efficiency of mental self-government accounts for individual differences in intelligence’
general intelligence: selected for in human evolution perhaps because it helps us deal with novel problems
IQ = abstract reasoning, problem solving, ability to acquire knowledge
• calculated based on scores in variety of subtests
o verbal tests, skills
• positive correlations with
o academic success (.3 to .7)
o career success (.2 to .6)
▪ the more challenging jobs, the stronger the correlation)
• negative correlations with
• gives a rough idea about how the person will do at school and at work
measuring intelligence (modern IQ test)
• Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th edition (WAIS-IV)
• Groninger Intelligentie Test-2 (GIT-2) → in NL
in order to make an intelligence test: a (large) random sample takes the test
• making the test normative → the avg group score) by definition) = 100
• the distribution of IQ should have a bell-curve shape
genetic and environmental contributions to intelligence: no simple answers
QUESTION NOT TO ASK: to what extent is the IQ score determined by genes/environment?
QUESTION TO ASK: can variability in IQ in exact population be attributed to differences in genes (heritability) or
environment?
• analogy of an inflated balloon: its thickness is determined both by the rubber thickness and the air inside the
balloon
ways to find out the contributions of genes to IQ
• identical twins: 100% same genes
1the difference in perception and reasoning may be the results of preference rather that ability; they are not the result of genetic differences,
more likely the ancient philosophies that underlie the cultures
