"Reflective thinking" vs the rest. Just for fun

Discussion in 'Critical Discussions Among Proponents and Skeptics' started by Kay, Jan 26, 2016.

  1. Kay

    Kay New

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    231
    :)

    http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html

    -----
    4.1 Analytic thinking
    Dual-process theories of reasoning and decision making distinguish between intuitive (“Type 1”) processes that are autonomously cued and reflective (“Type 2”) processes that are effortful, typically deliberative, and require working memory (Evans & Stanovich, 2013). A crucial finding that has emerged from the dual-process literature is that the ability to reason involves a discretionary aspect (Stanovich, 2011; Stanovich & West, 2000); a distinction that has long historical precedent (Baron, 1985). Namely, to be a good reasoner, one must have both the capacity to do whatever computation is necessary (i.e., cognitive ability, intelligence) and the willingness to engage deliberative reasoning processes (i.e., analytic cognitive style; thinking disposition). Moreover, individual differences in analytic cognitive style are positively correlated with conflict detection effects in reasoning research (Pennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler & Fugelsang, 2014; Pennycook, et al., 2015), indicating that more analytic individuals are either better able to detect conflict during reasoning or are more responsive to such conflict. Consistent with Sagan’s (1996) argument that critical thinking facilitates “baloney detection”, we posit that reflective thinking should be linked to bullshit receptivity, such that people who are better at solving reasoning problems should be more likely to consider the specific meaning of the presented statements (or lack thereof) and judge failure to discern meaning as a possible defect of the statement rather than of themselves. In other words, more analytic individuals should be more likely to detect the need for additional scrutiny when exposed to pseudo-profound bullshit. More intuitive individuals, in contrast, should respond based on a sort of first impression, which will be inflated due to the vagueness of the pseudo-profound bullshit. Analytic thinking is thus the primary focus of our investigation, as it is most directly related to the proposed ability to detect blatant bullshit.

    -------------

    I first encountered the "reflective reasoning tests" when working at the the highly prestigious "Amazon Mechanical Turk", taking academic surveys and competing with people in India on writing assignments. (the pay for both was AMAZING! lol)

    My "gut instinct" was to treat the "reflective reasoning" questions (a bat and a ball, a lilypad, widget machines) as "trick questions", by virtue of how they were awkwardly inserted into the tests. I actually had to get a pen and paper out to figure out the bat and ball one for sure. :P
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2016
  2. I suspect this kind of thing is why people lose trust in science as an institution.
     
    Bucky likes this.
  3. People don't have to be either analytic or intuitive. They can develop both styles of thinking and learn to use the proper type in the appropriate situation. In fact, many situations require both types of thinking.

    Most people understand the problems that can come from weak analytical skills. But there are problems caused by weak intuitive (sometimes referred to as empathic) skills:
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/252241.php
    One way to develop empathic thinking is with meditation.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  4. If anyone is wondering... they're here:
    http://bigthink.com/praxis/a-three-question-math-quiz-that-predicts-whether-you-believe-in-god

    It is somewhat misleading to measure intuitive skills with brain teasers because intuitive skills are useful for a different purpose, for example, social situations. I think they are making a mistake assuming that if you are not good at analytical thinking you are good at intuitive thinking and if you are good at analytical thinking you are not good at intuitive thinking. It's possible to be good or bad at both.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2016
  5. Arouet

    Arouet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,222
  6. What separates an atheist from an agnostic?
     
  7. Arouet

    Arouet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,222
    Heh, nice try, but you won't lure me in that easily!
     
  8. Lure you in to what?- I've already said I don't know if there is a God on this board.
     
  9. Kay

    Kay New

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    231
    Nothing, usually. Technically someone could be a gnostic atheist and be 100% convinced there are not and never have been any deities, but most self-described atheists think gods are possible, but there's just no evidence supporting belief in them.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.

Share This Page