How People Reason: Analogies as Foundation for Reasoning; o Use of Analogies in Scientific Reasoning o Use of Analogies in Judicial and

d Political Reasoning and Persuasion o Analogy Problems Are Used in Tests of Reasoning Ability Inductive Reasoning and Some Biases in It; o The Availabilty Bias o The Confirmation Bias o The Predictible-World Bias The Concrete Nature of Deductive Reasoning; o Bias to Attend to the Content of Deductive Problems Rather than to the Logig o Use of Diagrams and Mental Models to Solve Deductive Problems Elements of Insight: How People Solve Problems Creatively; o Two Examples of Insight Problems o Breaking Out of a Mental SetL Broadening One's Scope of Perception and Thought o Discovering a Solution o Unconscious Mental Processes May Lead to Insight o The Value of a Happy, Playful Frame of Mind

Effects of Culture and Language on Thought. Some Cross-Cultural Differences in Perception and Reasoning; o Responses of Unschooled Non-Westerners to Western-Style Logic Questions o An East-West Difference: Focus on Wholes versus Parts The Words of One's Language Can Affect One's Thinking; o Effects of Spatial Terms on Spatial Reasoning o o Effect of Number Words on Math Ability Sexism and the Generic Man

The Practice and Theory of Intelligence Testing. A Brief History of Intelligence Testing; o Francis Galton's Tests of Mental Quickness and Sensory Acuity o Alfred Binet's Tests of School-Related Abilities o Modern Intelligence Tests Patterned After Binet's The Validity of Intelligence Tests as Predictors of Achievement. The Concept of General Intelligence and Attempts to Explain It; o General Intelligence (g) s the Commons Factor Measured by Diverse Mental Tests o The Distinction Between Fluid Intelligence and Crystallized Intelligence o Mental Speed as a Possible Basis for g o Working-Memory Capacity as a Possible Basis for g o Mental Self-Government as a Possible Basis for g o General Intelligence as an Evolutionary Adaptation for Novelty Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Intelligence. Contributions to IQ Differences Within a Cultural Group; o The Concept of Heritabilty

o The Value of Studying Twins to Separate Genetic and Environmental Influences o IQ Heritability Asessed from Studies of Twins o The Short-Lived Influence of the Family in Which One Is Raised o Effects of Personality and Life Experiences on Intelligence Origins of IQ Differences Between Cultural Groups; o Why Within-Group Heritability Coefficients Can't Be Applied to Between-Group Differences o Evidence that Black-White IQ Differences Are Cultural in Origin o Different Tyoes of Minority Status Can Have Different Effects on IQ o The Historical Increase in IQ

How People Reason: Analogies and Induction People reason by using the following thougt processes: Analogies, Induction, Deduction and Insight. There are two kinds of reasoning that depend quite explicitly on identifying similarities, which are analogical reasoning and, closely related to it, inductive reasoning. Analogies as Foundation for Reasoning: Analogy refers to similarity in behavior, function, or relationship between entities or situations that are in other respects, such as in their physical makeup, quite different from each other. Use of Analogies in Scientific Reasoning Scientists often attempt to understand and explain natural phenomena by thinking of analogies to other phenomena that are better understood. (think about: Darwin's findings of selective breeding of plants and it's analogy to selective breeding in nature) Use of Analogies in Judicial and Polictical Reasoning and Persuasion Lawyers, politicians, and ordinary people frequently use analogies to convince others of some claim or course of action they support. (think about: when lawyers use examples which are common in or an analogy to everyday life to simplify some complex problems in a case to convince the jury.) Analogy Problems Are Used in Tests of Reasoning Ability Tests of reasoning ability often use analogy problems. Commonly used tests are The Miller Analogy Test and Raven's Progressive Matrices test. Miller's tests use words as measure while Raven's tests use visual patterns as measures. Inductive Reasoning and Some Biases in It: Inductive Reasoning is the attempt to infer some new principle or proposition from observations or facts that serve as clues. Induction is also called hypothesis construction because the inferred proposition is as best an educated guess, not a logical necessity. All the examples of reasoning by analogies, as formerly discussed in the book, are also examples of inductive reasoning. In fact, in general, inductive reasoning is reasoning that is founded on perceived analogies or other similarities. The evidence from which one induces a conclusion is, ultimately, a set of past experiences that are in some way similar to one another or to the

experience one is trying to explain or predict. The Availability Bias The availability bias is perhaps the most obvious and least surprising bias in inductive reasoning. When we reason, we tend to rely too strongly on information that is readily available to us and to ignore information that is less available. The Confirmation Bias the confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out answers or conclusions which will confirm your hypothesis. The most creditable hypotheses are those that survive the strongest attempts to disprove them. Nevertheless, research indicates that people's natural tendency is to confirm rather than disconfirm their current hypothesis. The predictable-World Bias We are so strongly predisposed to find order in our world that we are inclined to see or anticipate order even where it doesn't exist, this is called predictable-world bias. The predictableworld bias, really, is a tendency to engage in inductive reasoning even in situations where such reasoning is pointless because the relationship in question is completely random (think about: the gambling example). The predictable-world bias also has it's good point that it may prompt us to seek order and make successful predictions where order exists, and that advantage may outweigh the corresponding disadvantage of developing some superstitions or mistaken beliefs.

How People Reason: Deduction and Insight Deductive reasoning is the attempt to derive logically the consequences that must be true if certain premises are accepted as true. Whereas inductive reasoning is reasoned guesswork, deductive reasoning (when done correctly) is logical proof, assuming that the premises really are true. Deductive reasoning is illustrated in series problem and syllogisms. The Concrete Nature of Deductive Reasoning: There was a time when many psychologists believed that deductive reasoning is, at root, a logical process best understood in mathematical terms. But research shows that people are better at solving problems put to us in concrete terms than problems put to us in terms of xs and ys or other abstract symbols. Research has repeatedly shown that our natural inclination is to solve deductive problems by reflecting on our real-world knowledge, not by thinking about laws of logic. Bias to Attend to the Content of Deductive Problems Rather than to the Logic If people used formal logic to solve syllogisms, then it should not matter whether the statements in the problem are consistent with everyday experience, violate everyday experience, or are nonsensical. All that should matter is the formal structure of the problem. But numerous experiments show that the content does matter. The bias to use knowledge rather than formal logic in answering deductive reasoning questions can be construed as a bias to think inductively rather than deductively. Use of diagrams and Mental Models to Solve Deductive Problems A major difficulty in solving any complex deductive reasoning problem is that of representing all

the problem information in a way that allows you to see all the relationships implied by that information. A diagram on paper, rather than one held mentally, has the added advantage of freeing the mind for further thought about the problem, the use of the Euler circles also helps a lot with solving deductive problems. Consistent with the idea that people solve such problems by constructing mental models and holding them in working memory (the conscious mind), researchers have found that people who have large working memory spans are better at solving syllogisms requiring more than one model than are those who have smaller working memory spans. Also neuro-imaging studies reveal that areas of the brains that are involved in visuo-spatial reasoning become active during deductive reasoning, especially if the problem requires construction of a complex mental model or more than one model. Elements of Insight: How People Solve Problems Creatively Insight problems that are specially designed to be unsolvable until one looks at them in a way that is different from the usual way. Insight problems often entail a mix of inductive and deductive reasoning. Two Examples of Insight Problems One problem that psychologists have used in insight experiments is the mutilated checkerboard problem. Another problem use as an example is the candle problem. Breaking Out of a Mental Set: Broadening One's Scope of Perception and Thought Insight problems are difficult, in general, because their solution depends on abandoning a wellestablishe habit of perception and thought, referred to as a mental set, and then viewing the problem in a different way. The candle problem illustrates the mental set referred to as functional fixedness, the failure to see an object as having a function other than its usual one. Dicovering a Solution see page 364-365 for the solution for the checkerbox problem and the candle problem. Unconscious Mental Processes May Lead to Insight To be able to solve insight problems it's often needed, to take a time off and do something else, consciously think about something else, so your mind can unconsciously reorganize the material related to the problem, this time off is referred to as an incubation period. Incubation appears to facilitate insight, not deduction. Deduction requires conscious attention to the problem. The Value of a Happy, Playful Frame of Mind Experiments have shown that a happy mood improves people's performance on various tests of creativity and on ability to see whole patterns, rather than just the parts, in tests of visual perception. The broaden-and-build theory believes that negative emotions, such as fear and

anger, tend to narrow one's focus of perception and thought. While in contrast positive emotions, such as joy and interest, broaden one's scope of perception and thought and increase creativity.

Effects of Culture and Language on Thought. Research in different countries and cultures have found some interesting differences. Some Cross-Cultural Differences in Perception and Reasoning. Responses of Unschooled Non-Westerners to Western-Style Logic Questions Research show that the way Non-Westerners approach standard tests of reasoning, their understanding of what is expected of them, is culturally dependent. Researchers have also found that Non-Westerners are more likely than westerners to answer logic questions in practical, functional terms rather than in terms of abstract properties. To solve classification problems, for example, westerners generally consider it smarter to sort things by taxonomic category than by function, but people in other cultures do not. This difference in reasoning may be one of preference more than ability. An East-West Difference: Focus on Wholes versus Parts Westerners tend to see thing in parts while easterners see things in wholes. East Asians' attention to background, context, and interrelationships apparently helps them to reason differently in some ways from the way Westerners do. For instance, when asked to describe why an animal or a person behaved in a certain way, East Asians more often than Americans talk about contextual forces that provoked or enabled the behavior. Americans in contrast, more often talk about internal attributes of the behaving individual, such as motivation or personality. Nisbett and his colleagues suggest that the roots of the difference are in ancient philosophies that underlie the two cultures.

The Words of One's Language Can Affect One's Thinking. Language not only is a vehicle of communication that allows us to learn from one another but also is a vehicle of thought. To some degree, perhaps a great degree, we think with words. When we mentally use words which have formed into their abbreviated forms that may no longer be recognized as words, is called verbal thought. Because we often think and call forth information from long-term memory, which we've originally learned through language, people believe that language is a basis for thought. It's believed that language affects many of the ways that we perceive, remember, and think about the world, this is called linguistic relativity. Effects of Spatial Terms on Spatial Reasoning People who speak in a European language regularly represent space in terms of an egocentric frame of reference, which is a frame of reference that puts ourselves at the center.

Some languages do not have words for egocentric locations (such as left and right). People who speak those languages regularly use an absolute frame of reference, even when talking about things nearby. An absolute frame is one that does not depend on point of view; it is a frame that is based on the cardinal directions, what we call north, south, east, and west. People who speak languages that lack egocentric spatial terms not only are far better at knowing where they are at any given time than are those who speak European languages, but they also respond differently in certain nonverbal tests of spatial reasoning. From research results it's strongly suggested that languages also affect the way people think about space, not just the way they talk about it. People with egocentric terms tend to think of space in as it relates to themselves; people who speak languages which does not have egocentric terms tend to always think of space as it relates to the earth's coordinates. Effect of Number Words on Math Ability

The Practice and Theory of Intelligence Testing. A Brief History of Intelligence Testing: The Validity of Intelligence Tests as Predictors of Achievement: The Concept of General Intelligence and Attempts to Explain It: Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Intelligence. Contributions to IQ Differences Within a Cultural Group: Origins of IQ Differences Between Cultural Groups: How People Reason: Analogies as Foundation for Reasoning; Use of Analogies in Scientific Reasoning Use of Analogies in Judicial and Political Reasoning and Persuasion Analogy Problems Are Used in Tests of Reasoning Ability Inductive Reasoning and Some Biases in It; The Availabilty Bias The Confirmation Bias The Predictible-World Bias The Concrete Nature of Deductive Reasoning; Bias to Attend to the Content of Deductive Problems Rather than to the Logig Use of Diagrams and Mental Models to Solve Deductive Problems Elements of Insight: How People Solve Problems Creatively; Two Examples of Insight Problems Breaking Out of a Mental SetL Broadening One's Scope of Perception and Thought Discovering a Solution

Unconscious Mental Processes May Lead to Insight The Value of a Happy, Playful Frame of Mind

Effects of Culture and Language on Thought. Some Cross-Cultural Differences in Perception and Reasoning; Responses of Unschooled Non-Westerners to Western-Style Logic Questions An East-West Difference: Focus on Wholes versus Parts The Words of One's Language Can Affect One's Thinking; Effects of Spatial Terms on Spatial Reasoning Effect of Number Words on Math Ability Sexism and the Generic Man

The Practice and Theory of Intelligence Testing. A Brief History of Intelligence Testing; Francis Galton's Tests of Mental Quickness and Sensory Acuity Alfred Binet's Tests of School-Related Abilities Modern Intelligence Tests Patterned After Binet's The Validity of Intelligence Tests as Predictors of Achievement. The Concept of General Intelligence and Attempts to Explain It; General Intelligence (g) s the Commons Factor Measured by Diverse Mental Tests The Distinction Between Fluid Intelligence and Crystallized Intelligence Mental Speed as a Possible Basis for g Working-Memory Capacity as a Possible Basis for g Mental Self-Government as a Possible Basis for g General Intelligence as an Evolutionary Adaptation for Novelty Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Intelligence. Contributions to IQ Differences Within a Cultural Group; The Concept of Heritabilty The Value of Studying Twins to Separate Genetic and Environmental Influences IQ Heritability Asessed from Studies of Twins The Short-Lived Influence of the Family in Which One Is Raised Effects of Personality and Life Experiences on Intelligence Origins of IQ Differences Between Cultural Groups; Why Within-Group Heritability Coefficients Can't Be Applied to Between-Group Differences Evidence that Black-White IQ Differences Are Cultural in Origin Different Tyoes of Minority Status Can Have Different Effects on IQ The Historical Increase in IQ How People Reason: Analogies and Induction People reason by using the following thougt processes: Analogies, Induction, Deduction and Insight. There are two kinds of reasoning that depend quite explicitly on identifying similarities, which are analogical reasoning and, closely related to it, inductive reasoning.

Analogies as Foundation for Reasoning: Analogy refers to similarity in behavior, function, or relationship between entities or situations that are in other respects, such as in their physical makeup, quite different from each other. Use of Analogies in Scientific Reasoning Scientists often attempt to understand and explain natural phenomena by thinking of analogies to other phenomena that are better understood. (think about: Darwin's findings of selective breeding of plants and it's analogy to selective breeding in nature) Use of Analogies in Judicial and Polictical Reasoning and Persuasion Lawyers, politicians, and ordinary people frequently use analogies to convince others of some claim or course of action they support. (think about: when lawyers use examples which are common in or an analogy to everyday life to simplify some complex problems in a case to convince the jury.) Analogy Problems Are Used in Tests of Reasoning Ability Tests of reasoning ability often use analogy problems. Commonly used tests are The Miller Analogy Test and Raven's Progressive Matrices test. Miller's tests use words as measure while Raven's tests use visual patterns as measures. Inductive Reasoning and Some Biases in It: Inductive Reasoning is the attempt to infer some new principle or proposition from observations or facts that serve as clues. Induction is also calles hypothesis construction because the inferred proposition is as best an educated guess, not a logical necessity. All the examples of reasoning by analogies, as formerly sicussed in the book, are also examples of inductive reasoning. In fact, in general, inductive reasoning is reasoning that is founded on perceived analogies or other similarities. The evidence from which one induces a conclusion is, ultimately, a set of past experiences that are in some way similar to one another or to the experience one is trying to explain or predict. The Availability Bias The availabilty bias is perhaps the most obviouw and least surprising bias in inductive reasoning. When we reason, we tend to rely too strongly on information that is readily available to us and to ignore information that is less available. The Confirmation Bias the confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out answers or conclusions which will confirm your hypothesis. The most creditable hypotheses are those that survive the strongest attempts to disprove them. Nevertheless, research indicates that people's natural tendency is to confirm rather than disconfirm their current hypothesis. The predictable-World Bias We are so strongly predisposed to find order in our world that we are inclined to see or anticipate order even where it doesn't exist, this is called predictable-world bias. The predictableworld bias, really, is a tendency to engage in inductive reasoning even in situations where such reasoning is pointles because the relationship in question is completely random (think about: the gambling example). The predictable-world bias also has it's good point that it may prompt us to seek order and make succesful predictions where order exists, and that andvantage may outweigh the corresponding

disadvantage of developing some superstitions or mistaken beliefs.

How People Reason: Deduction and Insight Deductive reasoning is the attempt to derive logically the consequences that must be true if certain premises are accepted as true. Wheras inductive reasoning is reasoned guesswork, deductive reasoning (when done correctly) is logical proof, assuming that the premises really are true. Deductive reasoning illustrated in series problem and syllogisms. The Concrete Nature of Deductive Reasoning: There was a time when many psychologists believed that deductive reasoning is, at root, a logical process best understood in mathematical terms. But research shows that people are better at solving problems put to us in concrete terms than problems put to us in terms of xs and ys or other abstract symbols. Research has repeatedly shown that out natural inclination is to solve deductive problems by reflecting on our real-world knowledge, not by thinking about laws of logic. Bias to Attend to the Content of Deductive Problems Rather than to the Logic If people used formal logic to solve syllogisms, then it should not matter wheter the statements in the problem are consistent with everyday experience, violate everyday experience, or are nonsensical. All that should matter is the formal structure of the problem. But numerous experiments show that the content does matter. The bias to use knowledge rather than formal logic in awnsering deductive reasoning questions can be construed as a bias to think inductively rather than deductively. Use of diagrams and Mental Models to Solve Deductive Problems A major difficulty in solving any complex deductive reasoning problem is that of representing all the problem information in a way that allows you to see all the relationships implied by that information. A diagram on paper, rahter than one held mentally, has te added advantage of freeing the mind for further thought about the problem, the use of the Euler circles also helps a lot with solving deductive problems. Consistent with the idea that people solve such problems by constructing mental models and holding them in working memory (the conscious mind), researchers have found that people who have large working memory spans are better at solving syllogisms requiring more than one model than are those who have smaller working memory spans. Also neuroimaging studies reveal that areas of the brains that are involved in visuospatial reasoning become active during deductive reasoning, especially if the problem requires construction of a complex mental model or more than one model. Elements of Insight: How People Solve Problems Creatively Insight problems that are specially designed to be unsolvable until one looks at them in a way that is different from the usual way. Insight problems often entail a mix of inductive and deductive reasoning. Two Examples of Insight Problems

One problem that psychologists have used in insight experiments is the mutilated checkerboard problem. Another problem use as an example is the candle problem. Breaking Out of a Mental Set: Broadening One's Scope of Perception and Thought Insight problems are difficult, in general, because their solution depends on abandoning a wellestablishe habit of perception and thought, referred to as a mental set, and then viewing the problem in a different way. The candle problem illustrates the mental set referred to as functional fixedness, the failure to see an object as having a function other than its usual one. Dicovering a Solution see page 364-365 for the solution for the checkerbox problem and the candle problem. Unconscious Mental Processes May Lead to Insight To be able to solve insight problems it's often needed, to take a time off and do something else, consiously think about something else, so your mind can unconsiously reorganise the material related to the problem, this time off is referred to as an incubation period. Incubation apears to facilitate insight, not deduction. Deduction requires consious attention to the problem. The Value of a Happy, Playful Frame of Mind Experiments have shown that a happy mood improves people's performance on various tests of creativity and on abilty to see whole patterns, rather than just the parts, in tests of visual perception. The broaden-and-build theory believes that negative emotions, such as fear and angeer, tend to narrow one's focus of perception and thought. While in contrast positive emotions, such as joy and interest, broaden one's scope of perception and thought and increase creativity.

Effects of Culture and Language on Thought. Reasearch in different coutries and cultures have found some interesting differences. Some Cross-Cultural Differences in Perception and Reasoning. Responses of Unschooled Non-Westerners to Western-Style Logic Questions Research show that the way Non-Westerners aproach standard tests of reasoning, their understanding of what is expected of them, is culturally dependent. Researchers have also found that Non-Westerners are more likely than westerners to anwser logic questions in practical, functional terms rather than in terms of abstract properties. To solve classification problems, for example, westerners generally consider it smarter to sort things by taxonomic category than by function, but people in other cultures do not. This difference in reasnoning may be one of preference more than ability.

An East-West Difference: Focus on Wholes versus Parts Westerners tend to see thing in parts while easterners see things in wholes. East Asians'attention to background, context, and interrelationships apparently helps them to reason differently in some ways from the way Westerners do. For instance, when asked to describe why an animal or a person behaved in a certain way, East Asians more often than Americans talk about contextual forces that provoked or enabled the behavior. Americans in contrast, more often talk about internal attributes of the behaving individual, such as motivation or personality. Nisbett and his colleagues suggest that the roots of the difference are in ancient philosophies that underlie the two cultures.

The Words of One's Language Can Affect One's Thinking. Language not only is a vehicle of communication that allows us to learn from one another but also is a vehicle of thought. To some degree, perhaps a great degree, we think with words. When we mentally use words which have formed into their abbreviated forms that may no longer be recognized as words, is called verbal thought. Because we often think and call forth information from long-term memory which we've originally learned through language, people believe that language is a basis for thought. It's believed that language affects many of the ways that we perceive, remember, and think about the world, this is called linguistic relativity. Effects of Spatial Terms on Spatial Reasoning People who speak in an European language regularly represent space in terms of an egocentric frame of reference, which is a frame of reference that puts ourselves at the center. Some languages do not have words for egocentric locations (such as left and right). People who speak those languages regularly use n absolute frame of reference, even when talking about things nearby. An absolute frame is one that does not depend on point of view; it is a frame that is based on the cardinal directions, what we call north, south, east, and west. People who speak languages that lack egocentric spatial terms not only are far better at knowing where they are at any ginven time than are those who speak European languages, but they also respond differently in certain nonverbal tests of spatial reasoning. From research results it's strongly suggested that languages also affect the way people think about space, not just the way they talk about it. People with egocentric terms tend to think of space in as it relates to themzelves; people who speak languages which does not have egocentric terms tend to always think pf space as it relates to the earth's coordinates. Effect of Number Words on Math Ability

The Practice and Theory of Intelligence Testing. A Brief History of Intelligence Testing:

The Validity of Intelligence Tests as Predictors of Achievement: The Concept of General Intelligence and Attempts to Explain It: Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Intelligence. Contributions to IQ Differences Within a Cultural Group: Origins of IQ Differences Between Cultural Groups: