Cognition Exam 2: Readings

Gleitman & Newport

Learning acquisition is a type of learning heavily constrained or predisposed by our biology.

• Children are able to create rules and syntax — creates entirely new languages from rules of other languages

  • Pidgin —> Creole

  • Categories in the human mind — acquisition of syntax

  • Reasoning behind why a blind child may succeed while a deaf or neglected child after puberty struggles

Zwaan et al.

Images activate perceptual symbols during language comprehension.

• Two images are shown with a sentence prime

  • How long it takes to name the picture with the prime

  • Match was faster than mis-match

    • Excitatory vs. inhibitory effect

Havas et al.

Involuntary facial expression influences emotional language processing

• BTX injections on women — happy, sad, and angry — measures reading time and comprehension

• Facial feedback mediates emotional language comprehension

• Inability to engage —> inability to comprehend emotional-language processing

  • Connects with embodies cognition

Whorf

Linguistic Reality: The language people use determines how we think about the world

• Our language informs our way of reasoning

• “Breaks down nature” into objects

  • Not entirely true—otherwise we wouldn’t be able to think differently

Mahon

Though is independent from perception and action—Nonembodied

• Distinction between concepts and sensorimotor representations

• Concepts are connected to sensorimotor—not made

• Contradicts Glenberg

Glenberg

Embodied cognition—Our thoughts are based off of bodily experiences, and are controlled by sensorimotor and neural systems of perception

• Sensorimotor makes thoughts dynamic—gives them motivation and makes them happen

  • Perception—Motor resonance: looking at an object primes the body toward that object; mirror neurons; change in body—change in perception

  • Language Comprehension—Comprehension is simulation; when understanding, we simulate the content of language in our head

  • Action—Action is primed toward cognition and prediction; mirror neurons

• Understanding abstract constructs comes from embodying them

• Contradicts Mahon

Simon & Newell

Human problem-solving can be seen as an information-processing system

• Problem space—within the constraints of the system —> maximize your outcome

  • Well-defined problem —> algorithm —> heuristic

  • Ill-defined problem —> heuristic

• Means-ends solution/analysis—Goal —> start/intial

Chi et al.

Experts and novices solves problems differently according to their knowledge-base/categories

• Sorting “Fundamentals of Physics” problems

  • Experts: Governing principles — deep structure —> Top-down

  • Novices: Classification — surface structure —> Bottom-up

• If there is little meaning, expert struggle —> conform to their reasoning

Tversky & Kahnman (1974)

Making judgements in uncertain events

• Representative heuristic—Problems are evaluated by the degree that A resembles B, A is representative of B

  • Using qualitative analysis to form a relationship

  • Ignores randomness—law of small numbers

  • Illusion of validity—Confidence in prediction when unwarranted —> stereotypes

• Availability heuristic— If something can come to mind more frequently, it is thought to happen more frequently

  • Ex: fear of flying on a plane, child abduction

• Anchoring—Where you begin determines where something will end up

  • Confirmation bias—We check for things that prove us right, but not wrong (e.g. Wason’s Task)

  • Ex.: estimating a list of numbers — starting w/ larger numbers makes it seem larger

Gilovitch et al.

There is no such thing as a hot hand or streak shooting

• Studied fans and players’ beliefs, examined the probability of streaks of hits and misses

• Attributed to the misconception of chance

  • Sequences of hit is more memorable

  • Shorter runs of hits vs. misses —> attributed to chance

We look for patterns in things, even when they aren’t really there

Tversky & Kahneman (1981)

Decision-making —> expected utility —> ties to rationality

• Choosing gains — risk-adverse

• Choosing loses — risk-taking

Prospect Theory— people evaluate outcomes relative to a reference point

• Reference point—Decision is dependent on where the subject imagines themselves — how are you determining how much to gain or lose?

• Sunk-cost fallacy—You’ve already lost so much, you’re hoping to gain it back

Kahneman et al.

Endowment effect—people place a higher value on items they own than what they’re worth

• Status quo bias—A bias towards no change; stay with what you have initially —> may be motivated by what we lose

  • Using a reference point

  • Risk-aversion

• Disadvantages loom larger than the potential advantages

• Advantages increase with more alternatives

• Influences judgements of fairness — gain vs. loss

Ross & Sicoly

Egocentric bias—we tend to focus on what we do, rather than the contributions of others

• Married couples —> Questionnaire found that they assumes each other does more than the other person

• Group discussed a case study —> free-recall found they were able to recall their own contirbutions

  • Shifted blame to others — during failure

• Basketball players — Questionnaire after a game

  • Description of a turning point; Won/lost because —> attributed to their own team; did not focus on the actions of the other team

• Graduate students assessing student/supervisor contributions on a thesis

  • Recalled a greater portion of the supervisor’s contribution

Optimize your perspective

Gigerenzer & Hug

Domain-specific reasoning—Reasoning was evolved to solve specific problems

• Why we are good at some problems, and bad at others

• Tap into the domain it is supposed to solve

• Cheater-detection—as long as people know it could be a cheating problem, they detect it

  • Subjects were given a cheating or no cheating scenerio

  • Subjects determined if the rule was true

Sigmund et al.

The Ultimatum Game—Divider & decider — on-shot game

• Fairness matters — but is irrational

  • May be what distinguishes us from animals

• People are often more fair than they have to be

• Revenge/tit-for-tat—maintains cooperation

  • Emotional reasoning —> irrational/meta-rational

Kent

Language needs to connect back to the world to have meaning

• Relating to something we can take to create association, connection, and meaning