Invitation to Psychology

260 Chapter 7 Thinking and Intelligence

Psychology in the news revisited

H

as reading this chapter given you an appreciation

of what it takes mentally to concoct the experi-

ments that win Ig Nobel prizes? Many of these awards

reflect great intelligence and creativity. Consider

Catherine Douglas and Peter Rowlinson’s 2009 prize

for their finding that cows with names produce more

milk than cows without names. That may seem to be

a charming but trivial discovery, yet it shows that the

quality of the human-animal relationship can affect

not just an animal’s behavior but also the animal’s

basic biology. Some Ig Nobel projects also have prac-

tical applications. Those tiny diamonds produced by

the Russian researchers in our opening story may not

be usable in a glittery necklace but they have many

industrial and even biomedical uses. And if you ever

have a colonoscopy, you’ll appreciate that discovery

of ways to prevent your bowels from exploding dur-

ing the procedure—a rare but real occurrence. The

Ig Nobel awards are good fun, but they also vividly

demonstrate the first, most fundamental step in criti-

cal thinking: Ask questions and be willing to wonder.

So it is for good reason that we are used to think-

ing of ourselves as the smartest species around. Our

cognitive abilities allow us to be funny, playful, smart,

and creative. A great artist like Rodin can create The

Thinker and then countless creative imitators will

make their own versions in sand, metal, cartoons,

ice, or, who knows, ice cream. Human beings not only

can think critically, but also can think critically about

thinking critically—and understand the reasons that

sometimes they don’t or can’t.

Yet, as the studies in this chapter have shown,

we humans also get ourselves into colossal muddles.

We think we are better at many skills than we actu-

ally are, we have many cognitive biases that distort

reality, and we often behave mindlessly. And as if our

mental flaws in thinking and reasoning weren’t bad

enough, many people worry that machines are gaining

on us in the mental abilities department—a frequent

theme in science fiction. Enormous strides have been

made in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), the use

of computers to simulate human thinking. Avatars

already are being designed to diagnose patients’ ill-

nesses by long distance, provide psychotherapy, and

serve as virtual personal assistants. As speech recog-

nition and other AI technologies improve, ethicists are

concerned about the potential for their manipulation

and misuse. On a social level, will corporations shield

themselves behind robot voices designed to chill out

angry consumers? On a personal level, will comput-

ers and robots eventually be able to make crucial

decisions for us on how to improve public education,

choose a life partner, or manage a baseball team?

Computers are impressive, but keep in mind—

your own complicated, remarkable, fallible mind!—

that real intelligence is more than the capacity to per-

form computations with lightning speed. As we have

seen, it involves the ability to deal with informal rea-

soning problems, find novel solutions, reason dialecti-

cally and reflectively, devise mental shortcuts, read

emotions, and acquire tacit knowledge. Robots and

computers, of course, are not the least bit troubled by

their lack of cleverness, inasmuch as they lack a mind

to be troubled. As computer scientist David Gelernter

(1997) put it, “How can an object that wants noth-

ing, fears nothing, enjoys nothing, needs nothing, and

cares about nothing have a mind?”

So what is the take-away message of this chap-

ter? Should we humans be humbled by our cognitive

blunders or encouraged by our cognitive achieve-

ments? The answer, of course, is both. Because

machines are mindless, they lack the one trait that

distinguishes human beings not only from computers

but also from other species: We try to understand our

own misunderstandings (Gazzaniga, 2008). It is our

crowning accomplishment. We want to know what we

don’t know; we are motivated to overcome our mental

shortcomings. This uniquely human capacity for self-

examination is probably the best reason to remain

optimistic about our cognitive abilities.

Human beings worry that machines will outsmart us, but

it’s not likely.

Courtesy of Andrew Toos/CartoonStock.com

226

Thought: Using What^ Reasoning Rationally Know^ We^

Barriers to Reasoning Rationally

Measuring Intelligence: The Psychometric Approach Dissecting Intelligence: The

The Origins of Intelligence Cognitive Approach^

Animal Minds Revisited Psychology in the News,

(^7) Ta (^) Yo (^) Creative u: Becoming More king Psychology W ith
• (^) munition measured in nanometers). Peace: SKN, (^) into a diamonds Russian company(albeit ones , for so converting tiny that old they’re am-
• Literature:Office, that (^) recommends for The (^) issuing U.S. a the Government “report preparation about General reports of a report Accountability about about reports the
• ren, Physics: report about reports about reports.” (^) and Joseph Robin KelleBall, for r, Raymond calculating^ Goldstein,^ the forces Patrick that shape War-
and move hair in a swinging ponytail.
Ig Nobel Prize Winners AnnouncedAnnual (^) CAMBRIDGE, (^) Ig Nobel MA, September ceremony 21, took 2012.place The (^) last twenty-second night (^) at Harvard First
Universityorganization prizes. The ’sSanders event (^) whose is stated Theatre, sponsored goal honoring by is to Improbable honor winners achievements of Research, ten Ig Nobel that an
“fiareas, rst make people laugh, then make them think.” (^) Like the real Nobels, the Ig Nobels are awarded in many ranging from public health to peace to biology. The
sponsors in unusual, science, honor say medicine, that the the imaginative—and prizes and technology“are intended .” spur This to people’yearcelebrate ’s s interest winners the
come Russia, United States:from Rwanda, Canada, Sweden, France, the the United Netherlands, Kingdom Japan, and Peru, the
• (^) that looking at photographs of their fellow apes’ rear ends. Anatomy:chimpanzees Frans de Wcan aal identify and Jennifer other chimpanzees Pokorny, for showing just by
• (^) lupe, (^) they Psychology:for see the discovering Anita Eiffel Eerland, ower Tthat as Rolf when being Zwaan, people smaller and lean than Tuto when lio the Guada-left, they

• stand upright. Acoustics:ing the SpeechJammer Kazutaka Kurihara and Koji^ , a handheld machine Tsukada, for invent-that disrupts
  peoplea slight delay’s speech. by playing their words back to them with

THINKING AND

INTELLIGENCE

Psychology in the News Revisited

ersru,he

ngby

aft, ey-

nt- Three scientists spoof the prize-winning “Eiffel nual Ig Nobel award ceremony, where scientists get to prove they have a Tower” study at the an-

sense of humor.