The second course of the specialization EVALUATING PROBLEMS will show you how humans think and how to utilize different disciplinary approaches to tackle problems more effectively. It advances your knowledge of your own field by teaching you to look at it in new ways. EVALUATING PROBLEMS is constructed in the following way: Week I. “Thinking about Thinking” – How problem solving evolved in nature, how the mechanics of our brains work, and the psychological biases that can emerge when we think. Week II. “Philosophy, Science, and Problem Solving” – How humans have historically approached problem solving, from ancient times to the present. Week III. “Approaching Problems in the Natural Sciences” – How people in the natural sciences deconstruct problems. Week IV. “Statistics and Problem Solving” – How statistics can be used to evaluate problems and think critically. Week V. “Approaching Problems in the Humanities” – How people in the social sciences and humanities deconstruct problems. Week VI. “Evaluating the Anthropocene” – How to evaluate the problems of the Anthropocene.
The Bias of our Brains
Loading...
From the course by Macquarie University
Evaluating Problems
4 ratings
Macquarie University
Evaluating Problems
4 ratings
Course 2 of 4 in the Specialization Solving Complex Problems
From the lesson
The Evolution of Problem Solving
Welcome to the second course of our specialisation on solving complex problems! In this module, we will introduce you to modes of thinking, how our capacity for thinking has evolved, and the blindspots that can still arise out of our fragile, blindly evolved, mammalian brains.
Meet the Instructors
David BakerAssociate Lecturer
Big History Institute
David ChristianProfessor
Big History Institute
Shawn RossAssociate Professor
Big History Institute
The big question for this segment is, how trustworthy is a human brain as a problem solver and are humans rational? [MUSIC] The question of human rationality has occupied the thoughts of some of the worlds greatest thinkers. For more than 2000 years. Aristotle conceive the rationality was a fundamental characteristic of human thinking. For much of the 20th century, economists assumed that decision making was underpinned by a kind of universal rationality reflecting the maximization of personal expected utility. These view is a sheen of human reasoning and judgment were governed by fundamental principles that denote what good thinking should look like.
On a more intuitive level, people generally think that they know what good thinking is. We have a strong sense of what a rational judgment looks like, and can readily point out behavior that doesn't conform. To our expectations for rational thought. However, although you may consider your beliefs to be rational, underpinned by evidence, knowledge and experience. What about people who have different beliefs to you? Are they irrational, mistaken, have poor judgment? Are they less rational than you?
In this lecture I will consider what insight psychology can provide about human rationality. Over the past 50 years psychologists have shown that we often deviate from the norms for good thinking.
Our judgments about the likelihood of a particular outcome are often biased, and rely on simple heuristics, or rules of thumb, that deliver solutions that are inconsistent with rational norms. Our decision-making is typically influenced by the way in which problems are described. Features that are independent of the formal structure of the choice that we are asked to make. We will consider two classic examples of problems from the reasoning literature, that depict the fallibility of the human brain in rational judgment. And we will reflect on the implications of this work, for our understanding of human rationality. Let's start by considering a classic problem in the psychology of reasoning, a problem first devised by Peter Wason in 1966. The selection task is an ingenious problem that appears at least superficially to be straightforward.
Suppose you are presented with the uppermost side of the following four cards. Each card has a letter on one side, and a number on the other side. You're also given a rule that governs what letter, number combinations are acceptable. The rule is, if there is a letter A on one side of the card, then there is a number four on the other side of the card.
You have to decide which card, or cards to turn over in order to determine whether the rule is true or false.
Now, if you were like the participants in Wasons's experiment. You would have chosen the A and the 4 card, or maybe just the A card alone.
Perhaps you thought that if you chose the A card and there was a 4 in the other side, the rule would be true. And if you chose the 4 card, and there was an A on the other side, the rule would also be true. What is interesting about this task is it looks simple, but on average only 10% of people get it right, or give the logical response. The logical solution is choose the A and the 7 card. If you choose the A card and there is not a 4 on the other side, the rule is false. Similarly, if you choose a 7 card which is not a 4, and there is an A on the other side, the rule is also false. What this task seems to demonstrate is that people do not try to falsify the rule. Instead they make selections that could only confirm the truth of the rule, but never falsify it. We will return at the end of the lecture to the question of whether this shows us to be irrational or not. As with most things in psychology, there is substantial debate about this. But first, let's consider another way to some ingenious tasks. A problem designed to examine scientific thinking. Imagine you were told that there is a rule that governs acceptable three digit sequences. And your task is to discover what the rule is. You are told that the following triplet conforms to the rule, 2, 4, 6. In order to discover the rule you will have to generate number triplets. And the experimenter will tell you whether they conform to the rule or not. This is a really interesting task, because it tells us something about how people test hypotheses. For example, you might think the rule is an ascending sequence of numbers separated by two, and you could test this by generating triples such as 8, 10, 12 or 3, 5, 7. Both of which conform to the rule of the experiment has in mind, but it is not the same as your hypothesis. The actual rule that the experiment has in mind is any ascending sequence. What Wason found was that very few of his participants discovered the rule, and the task became increasingly frustrating for many people. But most interesting a study is the way people went about testing their hypotheses. They consistently generated sequences that conformed to the hypothesis they had in mind, and hence they would invariably get positive feedback from the experimenter. Typically, participants' hypotheses were much more specific than the general rule of an ascending sequence. Of course, the traditional scientific method as most scientists will tell you, depends crucially on seeking avenues to disconfirm a hypothesis. But Wason participants did this very rarely, and hence did not successfully solve the problem.
According to Wason, what both of these tasks have in common is that they demonstrate confirmation bias. The tendency to test a rule, or a hypothesis by seeking instances that are confirmatory.
People do not tend to seek out evidence that would serve to disconfirm their beliefs, or hypotheses. A phenomenon that is pervasive in everyday thinking. So, what can this tell us about human thinking? Well, it may suggest that we are not as rational as we think we are, delivering a relatively pessimistic view of human rationality.
However, like any science, the psychology of thinking is characterized by debate, disagreement, and conflicting evidence. Many researchers, for example, would argue that the norms we use to evaluate the quality of thinking, such as logic or decision theory, are not the right ones. When thinking is evaluated against different norms, it can often look perfectly rational. Others have argued that testing positive instances of a rule can often be quite adaptive, and deliver rapid problem solutions. So, the debate continues, but there was a clear lesson to be learned from this research. If you're ever challenged in your views or your beliefs, do consider all of the evidence available both positive and negative. And always be willing to change your view in the light of disconfirmation. [MUSIC]
Coursera provides universal access to the world’s best education, partnering with top universities and organizations to offer courses online.
© 2017 Coursera Inc. All rights reserved.
