Reasoning and Meta-Reasoning

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Rely on instinct or think it through? The value of analytic thought has been hotly debated in both the popular and academic press. Some authors point to the accuracy of intuitions, while recent findings suggest that a tendency towards analytic thinking, as measured by the reasoning tasks used in this proposal, may have profound consequence outside of the laboratory in terms of susceptibility to fake news, eloquent but dubious claims, belief in the paranormal, etc. The proposed research aims to reshape our understanding of when and how analytic thinking is engaged by better understanding how our thought processes are monitored and how this monitoring shapes subsequent analytic engagement. The first set of studies takes a detailed look at the role of cognitive capacity in reasoning, the consequences of reasoning while distracted, and how reasoning strategies shape reasoning outcomes. The second investigates why, all other things being equal, analytic reasoning is not engaged in situations where it would be appropriate. The proposal is that many such instances arise from a metacognitive monitoring failure: the cues that we rely on to tell us that our thought processes are working well can be misleading. These cues give rise to a sense of certainty or uncertainty about how well a process has, is, or will, unfold. For example, intuitions are often accompanied by a strong feeling of rightness, which is our signal that further thought is not needed. Such feelings are based on cues, such as the ease with which things come to mind, that may not be well correlated with accuracy. Thus, a strong feeling of rightness may lead us to think all is well when it is not. The proposed research investigates the factors that determine the strength of this feeling of rightness in a variety of reasoning situations, as well as the relationship between this feeling of rightness and the probability and degree of more deliberate analysis. I have also proposed to examine other types of monitoring processes, such as the feeling of error (can we tell when we have made a mistake?), the feeling of wrongness (a sense that something is amiss), and judgments of solvability (am I capable of solving this problem?). The relevance of this work to a world where “fake news” and information overload abound is clear. In addition, students at all levels will gain experience with both the technical skills needed to carry out basic research, but also the team-work, communication, and problem-solving skills necessary to all professions in our competitive, modern world.