Knowledge-lean problems

People aren't very good at thinking, if we were naturally good wouldn't need schools
1. Apollo: understand a nature of new problem and search through space of possibilties and come up with creative solution
2. Why, how we do bad thinking and how to stop this i.e guns fix crime
Kinds of thinking:remember knowledge, insight, reflective pondering, info other people give us, info may not be compatible with what we know about the world.
1. Stream of consciousness, we aren't studying passive unstructured thinking. Studying structured thought: goal-orientated thought-'diredted' thoguht Gilhooly (1995)
  1. "good thinking is what we want to achieve our goals"
Thinking is purposive: some things we how to do, some we don't. we make decisions, begins with doubts. Thinking produced in two fundamental stages search & infernece
1. Search: Possibilities; what we can do what can be done and where can i find more info, things we know or things we collect from the world (wiki), answer to question, solution to doubt; Evidence; if i make money i can invest it, belief to determine the extent to which possibility achieves goal; Goals; may know it but may evolve over time, criteria by which we evaluate possibilities and evidence, determine evidence sought and how it's used
2. Inference: evidence (things) we know compared to things we find out. How much do we trust both info sources? Under conscious control how we make use of that info> Not that good, not enough info, not alot of metabolic energy for thinking. What evidence is releveant depends on what you want, can arrange it to affect your decision.
3. Evidence affects the strength of possibiltites but the weight of evidence is determined by goals
Thinking not limited to decision making
1. Planning thought of as different thinking, feeds into search inference process. Can lead to later action of goals
  1. Our beliefs strengthen or weaken the problem. Thinking about beliefs leads to knowledge about the world.
    1. Relationship between knowledge, thinking and understanding. If you tell children the earth goes around the sun(1971) easier for them to think of earth as somewhere else. Lazy thinking, adult do it too, Naive theorists-forget about gravity when asked to predict how ball will roll off table , wrong McClosky (1983)
      1. Real world problems: alot of false beliefs
      2. Easier to mess with thermostat than solve the problem, wrong theory but gets you by Kempton (1986). People are subject to assembling very incomplete info, as we don't update people end up believing crazy things. Something about the way we think doesnt work right when it comes to reality.
      3. Wertheimer (1945/59) without understanding lack of transfer for problem. Applying formula incorrectly is overgeneralisation
      4. Katona (1940) situations with clearly defied success/failure don't result in inappropriate transfer. Learning with meaning NOT the same as understanding
Understanding:Why the structure of facts is the way it is. Perkins (1986) 1.the structure of what we want to understand 2.the purpose of the structure 3. the arguements about why the structure serves the purpose. To develop understanding we need to think while learning, not just accept & memorize
We think about beliefs: insight problem no inference to be drawn. Sometimes we know we're getting warm, sometimes the answer is immediately there. Behavioural learning want to get it right. Don't have infinte time to think just want it done
1. Search processes: recall - facts, experience, analogies, external aids-computers, libraries, other people
2. For thinking to succeed there must be something for the search to find. Knowledge, beliefs that correspond to reality. without this its empty
Descriptive models of thinking: theory how people normally think, expressed as heuristics (rule of thumb), search for five easiest solutions any more uses energy and time. Most of psychology
1. Observation : Keren & Wagenaar (1985) uncluttered by demand characteristics, can't isolate goals
2. Process Tracing: Payne, Bettman & Johnson (1988) record what subjects are looking at and for how long, not necessarily about decision, focused on processing. Collection of methods to measure how we go about collection/combining info
  1. Think alous protocols: widely use, concerns about adequacy-we may not have access; verbalising may change our thought process;may not verbalise certain thoughts or can't (nisbett & Wilson, 19977)
  2. VR useful is subjects are queried about contents of wm not causes
  3. Interviews: structured to allow subjects to understand questions and provide through answers (poss superior to questionnaires)
  4. Archival data: allows for scoring 'intergrative complexity'. Most useful when records are complete eg (janis (1982)
3. Hypothetical scenarios: affords precise control over possibly relevant factors, researcher can ask further questions (i.e ask subject to justify choices), may not be realistic (subject may respond how they think researcher wants them to)
4. Individual differences:not all people think the same way, some people bas, smarter than others consider info, reason better, cultural differences affect goals people have and therefore weight of certain kinda of evidence
5. Training and debiasing: test theory by training and looking for better thinking on another task, transfer of learning is the ;gold stndard'
6. Does teaching of thinking transfer? Nisberr et al(1987) a year of logic didnt help, law medicine or psychology did. Lehman & Nisbett(1990) social best for stats and natural science best for logical
7. Computer models & AI: Simon (1969): thinking due not to behaviour but by the the structure of the task/problem. test this by making a computer do a task to look at;theory of how people do it and make it the best oit can be
Normative Models: How we ought to think. If your goal is to be accurate not fast. These depend on the goals we hold, diff norm models depending on achievement wanted. Applicable in diff situations ie arithmatic. Logic, probailitiy. 'What is the objective fucntion he is trying to maximise?'
Prescriptive models: minimise difference from how you ought to think to how you normally think, move to norm model. scientific methods. legal systems rules of argument and evidence. Usually handed down and spread (educational system)

Próximo

Descrição

Resumo de Recurso

Semelhante

	Criado por issy_hinds mais de 10 anos atrás