Unit.5 Thinkingdocx

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 23

UNIT- 5

THINKING AND INTELLIGENCE (HUMAN AND AI)

5.1. CONCEPT FORMATION


How does concept formation occur, and what are its types?

Explain the various types of concept formation.

What are the types of concept formation, and how do individuals develop their
understanding through that?
Concept formation refers to a higher-order mental process that acts on information
that has been perceived through our sensory organs and encoded and stored in memory. This
process includes organization of the information into conceptual categories and the use of
such knowledge in reasoning, problem solving, goal selection, and planning.
As such concept formation is a cognitive process through which
individuals classify information, ideas, objects, or experiences into mental categories based
on shared characteristics or features. This mental process involves identifying common
attributes, abstracting these shared features from specific instances, and generalizing to create
mental categories or concepts. It’s a fundamental aspect of human thinking and learning that
helps us make sense of the world by organizing information into meaningful groups. For
example, when forming the concept of “vehicles,” one identifies shared attributes like the
ability to transport people and goods, and then generalizes this concept to include cars,
bicycles, trucks, and other specific examples that possess those common characteristics.

Types of concept formation:


The different ways in which individuals form and understand concepts.

1. Direct Experience: Direct experience concept formation occurs when individuals


form concepts based on personal, first hand interactions with objects, ideas, or
experiences. It involves direct sensory perception or real-life encounters with the
concept’s subject. For example, a person’s concept of “rain” is formed through direct
experience of feeling and seeing rain falling from the sky.
2. Indirect Experience: Indirect experience concept formation takes place when
individuals develop concepts based on information or knowledge acquired from
sources other than direct personal experience. It can involve learning from books,
teachers, videos, or other people’s accounts and descriptions. For instance, a child
may form a concept of “dinosaurs” through books, documentaries, or discussions with
others, even though they have never encountered a living dinosaur.
3. Faulty Concepts: Faulty concepts refer to those concepts that are formed with
inaccuracies or misconceptions. These concepts may arise from misunderstandings,
misinformation, or cognitive errors. For example, a person may have a faulty concept
of “chameleons” by believing that they change colour to match their surroundings
instantly (which is not entirely accurate).

These categories likely highlight different ways in which individuals acquire and
develop their understanding of the world. While direct experience and indirect experience are
common and reliable sources of concept formation, faulty concepts illustrate instances where
individuals may have misconceptions or incorrect beliefs about a particular concept.
Education and critical thinking play a crucial role in correcting faulty concepts and promoting
accurate understanding.

PROCESS OF CONCEPT FORMATION

The process of concept formation is a cognitive mechanism through which individuals


develop mental representations of categories, enabling them to understand and organize the
world around them. The process typically involves several stages:

1. Perception and Observation: Concept formation often begins with the perception
and observation of the external world. Individuals encounter various objects, ideas,
or experiences and begin to notice common characteristics among them. This initial
phase is driven by sensory input and first hand experiences.
2. Identification of Common Attributes: In the next stage, individuals identify the
common attributes or features that are shared among the objects or experiences they
have observed. These attributes serve as the basis for grouping similar items into a
mental category. For instance, when forming the concept of “trees,” common
attributes might include having a trunk, branches, leaves, and roots.
3. Abstraction: After identifying common attributes, the process of abstraction occurs.
This entails mentally extracting and emphasizing these shared features while
disregarding individual differences. This step is crucial for creating a generalized
mental representation of the category.
4. Generalization: Generalization is the act of extending the concept to include a
broad range of specific examples that share the identified common attributes. For
example, the concept of “flowers” may encompass roses, daisies, and tulips, even
though they differ in terms of color, size, and shape, because they share the common
attributes of being plants that produce colourful blooms.
5. Organization and Classification: Concepts are often organized hierarchically
within a cognitive structure. Broader categories encompass more specific
subcategories. This hierarchy allows for efficient cognitive organization and
retrieval. For instance, “animals” may be a broader category that includes
subcategories like “mammals,” “birds,” and “fish.”
6. Refinement and Revision: The process of concept formation is not static but can be
refined and revised as individuals gain more knowledge and experience. New
information may lead to the modification of existing concepts or the creation of new
ones.
7. Language and Communication: Language plays a crucial role in concept
formation. Once concepts are formed, they are given labels or names, which are
represented by words. This enables individuals to communicate and share their
understanding with others, creating a shared knowledge base within a culture.
8. Contextual Variation: It’s important to note that concept formation can be
influenced by cultural and contextual factors. What is considered a concept and how
it is defined can vary across different cultures and situations. Cultural and linguistic
differences may affect the boundaries and attributes of concepts.
9. Development and Learning: The process of concept formation is closely tied to
learning and cognitive development, especially in children. Children gradually
acquire and refine concepts as they grow and gain more exposure to the world.
Overall, the process of concept formation is a fundamental aspect of human cognition and is
crucial for organizing, understanding, and communicating about the complexity of the world
we live in. It enables us to group similar things together, make predictions, and adapt to new
situations by applying our conceptual knowledge.
THEORIES OF CONCEPT FORMATION

What are the key theories explaining concept formation, focusing on the Association
theory and the hypothesis testing theory?

The Association theory: The oldest and most influential theory in concept formation is the
principle of association, also known as associationism. This theory posits that a bond is
formed between two events or objects when they are repeatedly presented together. The
principle of association suggests that learning a concept occurs through the reinforcement of
correct associations and the non-reinforcement of incorrect associations. According to
associationism, a bond is formed between two events or objects when they are repeatedly
presented together. For example, when a red box is repeatedly presented with the label "red
box," a mental association is formed between the stimulus (the red box) and the concept (the
label "red box"). Reinforcement, such as a reward system, can facilitate the formation of this
mental association. Correct pairings of a stimulus with the correct concept label are
reinforced, while incorrect pairings are not reinforced, serving as a form of punishment. For
example, if a red box is correctly labelled as "red box," this association is reinforced.
However, if a red circle is incorrectly labelled as "red box," this association is not reinforced,
serving as a form of punishment.

Associationism provides a mechanistic viewpoint of concept formation, focusing on the


external stimuli and responses without considering internal cognitive processes. This
viewpoint leaves little room for the concept, prevalent among modern cognitive theorists, of
internal structures that select, organize, and transform information. Modern cognitive
theorists emphasize the importance of internal cognitive processes in concept formation.
Unlike associationism, which focuses solely on external stimuli and responses, modern
cognitive theorists argue that internal structures within the mind play a crucial role in
selecting, organizing, and transforming information. These internal structures include
processes such as attention, perception, memory, and reasoning, which shape how concepts
are formed and represented in the mind.

In conclusion, while associationism provides valuable insights into how associations are
formed between stimuli and concepts through repeated exposure, it offers a limited
perspective on concept formation. Modern cognitive theorists argue that internal cognitive
processes play a significant role in concept formation, influencing how information is
selected, organized, and transformed within the mind.

The hypothesis testing theory suggests that people solve problems and form concepts by
formulating and testing hypotheses. This concept has long been a fundamental idea in
experimental psychology. Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin (1956) applied a hypothesis-testing
model to concept formation in their influential book, "A Study of Thinking," providing a
detailed methodological analysis of how people perform in concept formation tasks. The
initial stage in concept formation involves selecting a hypothesis or strategy that aligns with
the objectives of the inquiry. This process is similar to how a scientist might plan a sequence
of experiments, a lawyer might ask a series of questions, or a doctor might conduct a set of
diagnostic tests. The fundamental question guiding this selection process is, "What is to be
gained by choosing one diagnosis over another?" In a typical concept formation experiment,
researchers present participants with an entire concept universe, which includes all possible
variations of a concept across different dimensions and attributes. Participants are then given
one instance of an exemplar of the concept and are instructed to identify the concept by
selecting other instances from the concept universe. After selecting an instance, participants
are informed whether it is a positive or negative example of the concept. This process
continues until participants successfully identify the concept. Participants may employ
various strategies during concept formation, including:

Simultaneous scanning: Participants start with all possible hypotheses and eliminate the
ones that are not tenable.

Successive scanning: Participants begin with a single hypothesis and maintain it if


successful. If unsuccessful, they may change it to another hypothesis based on all previous
experiences.

Conservative focusing: Participants formulate a hypothesis and select a positive instance of


it as a focus. They then make a sequence of reformulations, changing only one feature at a
time. They note each change and whether it results in a positive or negative instance.

Focus gambling: Participants change more than one feature of their hypothesis at a time,
hoping to determine the concept more quickly.
The conservative focusing strategy tends to be the most effective, while scanning techniques
provide only marginal success. However, one challenge with the Bruner model is that it
assumes participants adhere to a single strategy throughout the task. In reality, participants
often vacillate, shifting from one strategy to another as they progress through the task. The
hypothesis testing theory provides valuable insights into how people develop concepts
through a process of formulating and testing hypotheses. By understanding the strategies
people use in concept formation tasks, psychologists gain valuable insights into the cognitive
processes involved in problem-solving and concept formation.

5.2. LOGIC (REASONING)

What are the different types of deductive reasoning, and what challenges do individuals
face when using them, particularly with conditional and syllogistic reasoning?

Thinking refers to the general process of considering an issue in the mind, while logic
is the science of thinking or reasoning. Although two people may think about the same thing,
their conclusions both reached through thought may differ, one being logical, the other
illogical. Hence, logic can be described as the study of reasoning, wherein conclusions are
drawn from principles and evidence. In the process of reasoning, one progresses from
established knowledge to derive a new conclusion or assess a suggested one. Reasoning is
commonly categorized into two forms: deductive and inductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning: Deductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from one or more
general statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain conclusion. It often
involves reasoning from one or more general statements regarding what is known to a
specific application of the general statement.

Deductive reasoning relies on logical assertions known as propositions, which can either be
true or false. These propositions, such as "Cognitive psychology students are brilliant" or
"Cognitive psychology students like peanut butter," serve as the basis for arguments.
Cognitive psychologists are particularly interested in propositions that can be interconnected
to draw logical conclusions. In essence, deductive reasoning facilitates the linking of
different propositions to reach conclusions. Understanding how individuals connect these
propositions to draw conclusions is a key concern for cognitive psychologists. While some
conclusions are well-founded, others may lack sound reasoning.
Types of deductive reasoning:

Conditional reasoning, a fundamental aspect of deductive reasoning, involves drawing


conclusions based on if-then propositions. These propositions state that if a certain condition
(the antecedent) is met, then a consequent event follows. For instance, "If students study
hard, then they score high on their exams." A common pattern for drawing well-reasoned
conclusions from conditional propositions follows the structure: "If p, then q. p. Therefore,
q." This pattern demonstrates deductive validity, meaning it logically follows from the given
propositions.

However, deductive validity doesn't guarantee truthfulness. Even though a conclusion


may be deductively valid, it could still be untrue if the premises are false. People might
mistakenly perceive an illogical argument as logical if the conclusion aligns with their
beliefs. At this point, we focus solely on the deductive validity or logical soundness of the
reasoning, setting aside concerns about truthfulness.

Two significant types of deductive arguments based on conditional propositions are


modus ponens and modus tollens. In modus ponens, the reasoner confirms the antecedent, as
in the example "If you are a husband, then you are married. Harrison is a husband. Therefore,
he is married." In modus tollens, the reasoner denies the consequent, such as "If you are a
husband, then you are married. Harrison is not married. Therefore, he is not a husband."
However, not all inferences drawn from conditional reasoning are valid. Fallacies can occur,
leading to conclusions that aren't deductively valid. For instance, denying the antecedent or
affirming the consequent doesn't lead to valid deductions. Returning to the proposition "If
you are a husband, then you are married," denying the antecedent ("Joan is not a husband.
Therefore, she is not married") or affirming the consequent ("Joan is married. Therefore, she
is a husband") doesn't logically hold, as shown by the examples.

Syllogistic reasoning is another important form of deductive reasoning, centered on


syllogisms, which are deductive arguments incorporating two premises and a conclusion.
Each syllogism includes a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. Unfortunately,
there are instances where no logical conclusion can be drawn from the given premises.
Among syllogisms, the categorical syllogism is the most familiar. In this type, the premises
assert something about the category memberships of terms. Each term in the premises
represents all, none, or some members of a specific class or category. The premises connect
two terms, one of which is the middle term common to both premises. These assertions
indicate that some, all, or none of the members of the category of the first term belong to the
category of the second term. To ascertain the logical validity of the conclusion, the reasoner
must discern the category memberships of the terms.

For example:

• All cognitive psychologists are pianists.


• All pianists are athletes.
• Therefore, all cognitive psychologists are athletes.

Logicians often employ circle diagrams to visualize class membership, aiding in the
determination of logical soundness. While the conclusion logically follows from the
premises, it is false due to the falsity of the premises.

There are four types of premises:

1. Universal affirmatives: Statements like "All A are B" assert positively about all
members of a class.
2. Universal negatives: Statements that negate all members of a class.
3. Particular affirmatives: Statements that make positive assertions about some members
of a class.
4. Particular negatives: Statements that negate some members of a class.

In syllogisms, certain combinations of premises do not lead to logically valid


conclusions. For instance, syllogisms with two particular premises or two negative premises
cannot yield valid deductions. In such cases, reasoners face challenges in deducing
conclusions, often resulting in slower work and more errors.

Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from specific facts or
observations to reach a likely conclusion that may explain the facts. The inductive reasoner
uses this probable conclusion to predict future instances. Unlike deductive reasoning,
inductive reasoning does not lead to logically certain conclusions; instead, it produces well-
founded or probable conclusions.

For instance, if one notice that all students enrolled in cognitive psychology course
are on the dean's list, one might inductively reason that all cognitive psychology students are
excellent students. However, this conclusion cannot be logically proven unless one observe
the grade-point averages of all past and future students. Additionally, a single poor student in
the course could disprove the conclusion. Despite these limitations, after numerous
observations, one may feel confident in one’s inductive reasoning.

The challenge of induction lies in predicting the future when it hasn't occurred yet and
choosing which prediction to make among alternative possibilities. For example, in a number
series like 2, 4, 6, ?, most people would predict 8 as the next number. However, this choice
isn't guaranteed; other patterns could yield different results. We often choose familiar and
simpler patterns because they are easier to grasp.

Inductive reasoning forms the basis of the empirical method, wherein we cannot
logically conclude that all instances of a phenomenon will exhibit a certain characteristic just
because observed instances have shown it. For instance, concluding that all swans are white
based on observed white swans is risky because the next swan could be black. In research,
when we reject the null hypothesis (the hypothesis of no difference), we employ inductive
reasoning. However, we can never be certain if we're correct in rejecting the null hypothesis.

Cognitive psychologists believe people use inductive reasoning to make sense of


environmental variability and predict events, reducing uncertainty. They focus on
understanding how people use inductive reasoning rather than why. Inductive reasoning often
involves generating and testing hypotheses, generalizing broad understandings from specific
instances, and inferring specialized exceptions to general rules based on new observations.
For example, while observing birds, we may generalize that all birds can fly but later adjust
this understanding to include specialized exceptions like flightless birds such as penguins and
ostriches.

Casual inferences: Inductive reasoning involves making judgments about causality—how


we decide if one thing causes another. David Hume noted that we often infer causality when
we observe a consistent relationship over time: one event occurs, then another follows. If this
pattern repeats often enough, we may conclude that the first event causes the second.
However, a common problem, shared among psychologists, scientists, and non-scientists
alike, is confirmation bias. This bias can lead to errors like illusory correlations, where we
perceive connections between unrelated events. Additionally, when we try to determine
causality based solely on correlation, we often make mistakes. Correlation cannot reveal the
direction of causation—whether A causes B, B causes A, or if both are influenced by a third
factor, C.

Another error arises when we overlook that many phenomena have multiple causes.
For example, a car accident may result from the negligence of several drivers, not just one.
Once we identify one possible cause, we might stop searching for others—a phenomenon
called a discounting error. Confirmation bias significantly impacts our daily lives. For
instance, if we expect not to like someone, we might treat them differently, leading them to
respond unfavourably, thus confirming our initial belief. This effect, known as a self-
fulfilling prophecy, is evident in schooling as well. When teachers expect little from students
they perceive as having low ability, those students often perform poorly, reinforcing the
teachers' original beliefs.

Categorical inferences: People draw inferences using both bottom-up and top-down
strategies. Bottom-up strategies involve gathering information from sensory experiences and
observing various instances. From these observations, individuals consider the degree of
variability across instances and abstract a prototype or category. Once a prototype or category
is induced, individuals may use focused sampling to add new instances to the category. This
involves focusing on properties that have been useful in making distinctions in the past. Top-
down strategies, on the other hand, involve using existing knowledge or previously inferred
information. This includes selectively searching for consistencies within variations and
selectively combining existing concepts and categories to make inferences.

Reasoning by analogy: Reasoning by analogy involves applying inductive reasoning to draw


parallels between different situations or concepts. Instead of relying on causal or categorical
inferences, reasoning by analogy allows individuals to make connections based on
similarities. In an analogy problem like "Fire is to asbestos as water is to," (a) vinyl, (b) air,
(c) cotton, (d) faucet. The reasoner observes the first pair of items (fire and asbestos) and
induces one or more relations from them (such as surface resistance). The reasoner then
applies this relation to the second part of the analogy to arrive at a solution (in this case,
vinyl, as surfaces coated with vinyl can resist water).

Research using reaction-time methodology has explored how people solve induction
problems, with findings suggesting that much of the time spent on verbal analogies is in
encoding the terms and responding. Encoding can be particularly challenging in complex
analogies, such as those involving letter reversal or semantic content.

Analogies play a significant role in various domains, including politics. They can help
governing bodies reach decisions and justify them to the public. However, the success of
using analogies is not guaranteed and can vary based on interpretation. For example, during
debates over the war in Afghanistan, opponents drew analogies to Vietnam to argue for
withdrawal, while others used similar analogies to warn of potential consequences.

In everyday life, analogies are used to make predictions about the environment by
connecting perceptions with memories. People draw upon past experiences to anticipate
future outcomes. For instance, predictions about global warming may be influenced by
analogies to historical events when the atmosphere warmed or did not. Ultimately, an
individual's beliefs and decisions can be shaped by the analogies they choose to draw,
highlighting the subjective nature of analogical reasoning.

5.3 & 5.4. PROPLEM SOVING and DECISION MAKING

How do people approach problem-solving, and what are the different strategies
involved, including trial and error, algorithms, heuristics, and insight?

Identify some methods that people use to solve problems and make decisions.

What are some approaches individuals employ to address problems and reach
decisions?

Problem solving occurs when a goal must be reached by thinking and behaving in
certain ways. Problems range from figuring out how to cut a recipe in half to understanding
complex mathematical proofs to deciding what to major in at college. Problem solving is one
aspect of decision making, which is identifying, evaluating, and choosing among several
alternatives. There are various ways people can think to solve problems:

Trial and Error (mechanical solutions): One method is trial and error, also known as a
mechanical solution. Trial and error entails trying different solutions until finding one that
works. For instance, if Shelena forgets her online banking PIN, she might try different
combinations until she discovers the correct one, especially if she has only a few PINs she
typically uses. Mechanical solutions can also involve solving by rote, following a set of
learned rules. This method is akin to how word problems are solved in grade school.

Algorithms: Another approach is using algorithms, which are specific, step-by-step


procedures for solving certain types of problems. Algorithms always yield a correct solution
given enough time. Examples include mathematical formulas and organizing books on
shelves alphabetically. For example, if Shelena has no idea what her forgotten PIN might be,
she could try all possible combinations of four digits (0 through 9) until she finds the correct
one. While this method might take a long time for a person, computers can execute such
systematic searches quickly, making them useful in various computer programs.

Heuristics: Heuristics are mental shortcuts or "rules of thumb" that people use to make
decisions or solve problems quickly. While algorithms are specific, step-by-step procedures
that always lead to a correct solution given enough time, heuristics are more general and can
help narrow down possible solutions. However, unlike algorithms, heuristics do not always
guarantee the correct answer. One common heuristic is the representativeness heuristic,
which involves assuming that any object or person sharing characteristics with the members
of a particular category belongs to that category. For example, assuming that all people with
dark skin are from Africa is an application of the representativeness heuristic. However, this
heuristic can lead to errors, especially when it ignores base rates or the actual probability of
an event.

Another heuristic is the availability heuristic, which involves estimating the frequency
or likelihood of an event based on how easily relevant information can be recalled from
memory. For instance, if asked to estimate the frequency of words starting with the letter "K"
versus words with "K" as the third letter, people might overestimate the frequency of words
starting with "K" because they are easier to recall.

Despite their potential for error, heuristics can be useful in problem-solving. For
example, working backward from a goal is a heuristic that involves starting with the desired
outcome and determining the steps needed to achieve it. This approach is often used when
planning routes, such as finding the shortest way to get to a new coffee shop. Technology,
such as Internet maps or GPS, has made this process much easier compared to manually
comparing routes on a physical map. However, relying too heavily on technology may hinder
problem-solving skills that come from actively engaging in mental challenges.

Insight: Insight occurs when the solution to a problem suddenly comes to mind, often in the
form of an "aha!" moment. This phenomenon is not unique to humans; even animals like
chimpanzees have demonstrated the ability to solve problems through sudden insight. In
humans, insight often involves realizing that a problem is similar to one already encountered
or recognizing that an object can be used for a different purpose than intended. Insight is not
a magical process, although it may seem that way. Instead, it typically involves the mind
reorganizing a problem, sometimes even when the person is not actively focusing on it. For
example, in the problem of removing a coin from a bottle without removing the cork, the
solution might suddenly become clear: push the cork into the bottle and shake out the coin.
While insight can feel like a sudden revelation, it is a result of the mind's cognitive processes
at work. It involves mental reorganization and often occurs when the problem solver is not
directly focusing on the problem.

Overall, thinking is a complex process that encompasses various cognitive tools,


including mental imagery, concepts, and problem-solving strategies like trial-and-error,
algorithms, and heuristics.

PROBLEMS OR BARRIERS WITH PROBLEM SOLVING AND DECISION


MAKING:

The effectiveness of using insight to solve problems isn't always guaranteed. Sometimes, a
solution may seem just beyond reach because either the elements of the problem aren't
arranged correctly, or individuals are hindered by certain habitual ways of thinking that act as
obstacles to problem-solving. These habitual patterns of thinking often operate automatically,
influencing problem-solving attempts without individuals being consciously aware of their
influence. For instance, consider the classic problem of two strings hanging from a ceiling
that are too far apart to be easily tied together by hand. Despite having the necessary tools
nearby, such as pliers on a table, people may struggle to find a solution due to their fixed
perceptions or mental habits. However, by recognizing these automatic tendencies and
becoming consciously aware of them, individuals can discard their old approaches and adopt
more suitable problem-solving methods. Three common barriers to successful problem-
solving and decision making include functional fixedness, mental sets, and confirmation bias.
Functional fixedness: One problem-solving difficulty involves thinking about objects only in
terms of their typical uses, which is a phenomenon called functional fixedness (literally, “fixed
on the function”). Specifically, functional fixedness is the inability to realize that something
known to have a particular use may also be used for performing other functions (German &
Barrett, 2005). Functional fixedness prevents us from solving new problems by using old tools
in novel ways. Becoming free of functional fixedness is what first allowed people to use a
reshaped coat hanger to get into a locked car. It is also what first allowed thieves to pick simple
spring door locks with a credit card.
Mental sets: Functional fixedness is a cognitive bias where individuals tend to approach
problem-solving by relying on familiar methods or solutions that have worked for them in the
past. This tendency often leads them to overlook alternative strategies or possibilities. For
example, when faced with a problem, people typically try solutions that have been successful
previously, even if those solutions may not be the most effective in the current situation.
In the context of the dot problem, individuals might initially attempt to solve it by
following the conventional rule of staying within the lines. However, this approach proves
ineffective because the solution requires thinking beyond the usual boundaries. By extending
the lines beyond the dots, individuals can successfully solve the problem, demonstrating the
need to break away from conventional thinking patterns.

Confirmation bias: Another barrier to effective decision making or problem solving is


confirmation bias, the tendency to search for evidence that fits one’s beliefs while ignoring
any evidence to the contrary. This bias operates similarly to a mental set, but instead of being
fixed on a particular problem-solving method, it involves being fixed on a belief. For
instance, individuals who believe in extrasensory perception (ESP) may selectively remember
studies or instances that support their belief in ESP while ignoring evidence that refutes it.
Another example of confirmation bias is seen in people who believe they are proficient
multitaskers and can safely use their cell phones while driving. They may recall personal
experiences where they were able to multitask without incident while disregarding the
potential dangers. However, research indicates that under high-demand situations, such as
driving while multitasking, individuals can experience temporary blindness or deafness due
to sensory overload. Studies have shown that the majority of individuals are unable to
successfully perform multiple attention-demanding tasks simultaneously without significant
impacts on their performance.
THE PROBLEM-SOLVING CYCLE OR STEPS IN PROBLEM SOLVING:

The following are the steps involved in the problem-solving cycle, which encompass
problem identification, problem definition, strategy formulation, organization of information,
resource allocation, monitoring, and evaluation.

1. Problem Identification: This step involves recognizing a situation as problematic, which


can sometimes be challenging. It includes identifying goals, recognizing obstacles, or
acknowledging when proposed solutions are ineffective. For instance, identifying a question
for a term paper is crucial in this phase.

2. Problem Definition and Representation: Once a problem is identified, it must be clearly


defined and represented to understand how to solve it effectively. Accurate problem
definition is essential, as it directly impacts the ability to find a solution. For example,
defining the topic for a term paper accurately determines the research needed and the overall
strategy for writing.

3. Strategy Formulation: After defining the problem, the next step is to plan a strategy for
solving it. This may involve analysing or synthesizing information, as well as engaging in
divergent and convergent thinking. Strategies are developed to address the problem
effectively.

4. Organization of Information: This stage involves integrating all relevant information


needed to solve the problem. Organizing information strategically helps implement the
chosen strategy. For instance, outlining ideas for a term paper or creating a timetable for
earning a specific amount of money are forms of organizing information.

5. Resource Allocation: As most problems involve limited resources such as time, money,
and equipment, allocating resources effectively is crucial. Expert problem solvers tend to
focus more on global planning, while novices may allocate more time to local planning.
Planning ahead helps avoid errors and false starts.

6. Monitoring: Effective problem solvers continuously monitor their progress toward solving
the problem. They check their approach along the way, making adjustments if necessary. For
example, when writing a term paper, monitoring progress ensures that one is on track to meet
deadlines and goals.
7. Evaluation: After reaching a solution, it's important to evaluate its effectiveness. This
includes revising and editing, as well as recognizing new problems or opportunities for
improvement. Evaluation leads to new insights and strategies, completing the problem-
solving cycle and potentially initiating a new cycle.

5.5. HUMAN INTELLIGENCE

What are the key theories explaining intelligence and its different aspects, and how do
they contribute to our understanding of cognitive abilities?

Intelligence is the ability to learn from one’s experiences, acquire knowledge, and
use resources effectively in adapting to new situations or solving problems. In other words,
intelligence is the capacity to learn from experience, using metacognitive processes to
enhance learning, and the ability to adapt to the surrounding environment.

Several theories offer different explanations of the nature and number of intelligence-
related abilities:

Spearman’s G factor: Charles Spearman's theory of intelligence, known as the g factor,


suggests that intelligence consists of two distinct abilities: general intelligence (g factor) and
specific intelligence (s factor). According to Spearman, the g factor represents the ability to
reason and solve problems across various domains, while the s factor refers to task-specific
abilities in particular areas such as music, business, or art.

Traditional IQ tests primarily measure the g factor, as they assess general cognitive
abilities. Spearman argued that excellence in one area of intelligence tends to predict overall
superiority in intelligence. However, some researchers, such as Guilford and Thurstone,
criticized Spearman's theory for oversimplifying the concept of intelligence. Instead of
viewing intelligence as a single entity, these critics proposed that it consists of multiple
factors. For instance, Guilford suggested that there are as many as 120 different types of
intelligence. This perspective challenged the notion of a single, overarching g factor and
emphasized the diversity and complexity of human cognitive abilities.

Thurstone’s theory: Louis Thurstone proposed an alternative theory to Charles Spearman's


concept of a single general intelligence factor. Thurstone's theory, known as the Primary
Mental Abilities theory, posits that intelligence consists of seven distinct factors or primary
mental abilities.

1. Verbal Comprehension: This factor relates to the understanding of written and spoken
language and is typically measured using vocabulary tests.
2. Verbal Fluency: Verbal fluency refers to the ability to produce words fluently and
quickly, often assessed through tasks where individuals are required to generate
words starting with a specific letter within a time limit.
3. Inductive Reasoning: This factor involves the ability to identify patterns and make
generalizations based on observed data, often assessed through tasks such as
analogies or number-series completion.
4. Spatial Visualization: Spatial visualization refers to the ability to mentally manipulate
and rotate visual images, commonly assessed through tasks that require individuals to
mentally rotate objects or shapes.
5. Number: Number ability relates to numerical reasoning and problem-solving skills,
typically assessed through computation and basic mathematical problem-solving
tasks.
6. Memory: Memory ability encompasses the capacity to store and retrieve information,
often assessed through tasks involving the recall of pictures or words.
7. Perceptual Speed: Perceptual speed involves the ability to quickly and accurately
perceive and process visual information, commonly assessed through tasks that
require individuals to identify small differences in pictures or rapidly scan and
identify specific characters in strings of letters.

Thurstone's theory suggests that intelligence can be better understood by considering


these specific abilities rather than a single overarching factor. Each of these primary mental
abilities provides a direct means to measure different aspects of intelligence as defined by
Thurstone. Despite being proposed several decades ago, some researchers still utilize
Thurstone's measures to assess intellectual abilities in various contexts.

Guildford SOI Theory: J.P. Guilford proposed the Structure of Intellect (SOI) model as a
departure from Charles Spearman's single-factor model of intelligence. The SOI model
presents a more complex understanding of intelligence, suggesting that it can be
conceptualized through a multidimensional framework.

In Guilford's theory, intelligence is depicted as a cube that intersects three


dimensions: operations, contents, and products. Operations refer to mental processes such as
memory and evaluation, which are fundamental to cognitive functioning. For example,
evaluation involves making judgments or discerning between facts and opinions. Contents
represent the types of terms or stimuli encountered in cognitive tasks. These can include
semantic content (words), visual content (pictures), or other forms of stimuli. For instance,
when solving a problem, individuals may encounter verbal or visual information that requires
processing. Products refer to the types of responses or outcomes generated by cognitive
processes. These can range from simple units such as single words or numbers to more
complex structures like hierarchies or implications derived from the information.

Guilford's model is expansive, proposing up to 150 factors of the mind. However,


some critics have argued that Guilford posited more factors than he could empirically prove.
Despite this criticism, Guilford's contribution lies in encouraging researchers to consider the
various mental operations, contents, and products involved in intelligence. By acknowledging
the diverse ways in which individuals think and respond to cognitive tasks, Guilford's model
broadens our understanding and assessment of intelligence beyond a single, unitary construct.

Gardner’s multiple intelligences: Howard Gardner is a prominent theorist who proposed


the concept of multiple intelligences. Unlike traditional views that equate intelligence with
reasoning, logic, and knowledge, Gardner suggests that intelligence comprises various
distinct abilities. Initially, he identified seven types of intelligence, later adding an eighth and
tentatively proposing a ninth, such as verbal or linguistic intelligence, musical intelligence,
logical or mathematical intelligence, visual or spatial intelligence, kinaesthetic intelligence,
interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, naturalist intelligence, and existentialist
intelligence.

Gardner's theory has gained popularity, particularly among educators, as it


acknowledges and values diverse forms of intelligence beyond academic or cognitive skills.
However, the concept of multiple intelligences has faced criticism. Some argue that there is
limited empirical evidence supporting Gardner's theory, while others contend that such
evidence does exist. Additionally, critics suggest that the abilities identified by Gardner may
not align with the conventional understanding of intelligence.

Sternberg’s Triarchic theory: Robert Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of Intelligence proposes


that intelligence can be categorized into three distinct types: analytical, creative, and practical
intelligence.

1. Analytical Intelligence: This refers to the ability to analyze and solve problems by
breaking them down into component parts. It encompasses traditional academic skills and is
typically measured by intelligence tests and academic achievement tests. Analytical
intelligence is often associated with "book smarts."

2. Creative Intelligence: Creative intelligence involves the ability to generate novel and
innovative ideas, think divergently, and solve problems in unconventional ways. It
encompasses creativity and originality in problem-solving. Creative intelligence allows
individuals to approach problems from new perspectives and develop unique solutions.

3. Practical Intelligence: Practical intelligence, often referred to as "street smarts," involves


the ability to apply knowledge and skills effectively in real-world situations. It includes social
skills, adaptability, and the ability to navigate complex social environments. Practical
intelligence enables individuals to succeed in everyday life by being resourceful, tactful, and
adept at manipulating situations to their advantage.

These three types of intelligence can be illustrated in various contexts. For example,
when planning and completing an experiment:

i. Analytical intelligence is demonstrated by the ability to run statistical analyses on


data collected from the experiment.
ii. Creative intelligence is evident in the design and conceptualization of the experiment,
including the development of novel methodologies.
iii. Practical intelligence is displayed in securing funding for the experiment from donors,
negotiating resources, and effectively managing logistical challenges.
Sternberg's research suggests that practical intelligence plays a significant role in
predicting success in real-world settings, often independently of analytical intelligence.
Incorporating practical intelligence into educational assessments and programs can lead to
more comprehensive and beneficial outcomes, as it encompasses a broader range of skills and
abilities essential for success in various domains of life.

Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory: The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of


Intelligence is a comprehensive framework developed by Raymond Cattell, John Horn, and
John Carroll. Cattell introduced the concept of intelligence being composed of two main
factors: crystallized intelligence, representing acquired knowledge and skills, and fluid
intelligence, relating to problem-solving and adaptability in unfamiliar situations. John Horn
expanded on Cattell's work by including additional abilities related to visual and auditory
processing, memory, processing speed, reaction time, quantitative skills, and reading-writing
skills.

John Carroll further developed the theory by conducting extensive factor analyses of
data from numerous studies, resulting in a three-tier hierarchical model of cognitive abilities.
This model aligned closely with the concepts of crystallized and fluid intelligence proposed
by Cattell and Horn, leading to the formulation of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of
Intelligence. One key aspect of the CHC framework is the concept of general intelligence (g),
which serves as an overarching factor. Additionally, the CHC theory includes 16 broad
abilities, encompassing various cognitive domains such as fluid reasoning, short-term
memory, long-term storage and retrieval, processing speed, reaction and decision speed, and
psychomotor speed.

Several abilities within the CHC framework are based on Cattell's concept of
crystallized intelligence, such as comprehension-knowledge, domain-specific knowledge,
reading and writing, and quantitative knowledge. Other abilities are linked to sensory systems
and their corresponding brain regions, including visual processing, auditory processing,
olfactory abilities, tactile abilities, kinaesthetic abilities, and psychomotor abilities. Overall,
the CHC Theory of Intelligence provides a comprehensive and structured framework for
understanding the diverse array of cognitive abilities and their interrelationships, offering
insights into the nature and structure of human intelligence.
CREATIVITY

The concept of creativity as a form of problem-solving that goes beyond the


traditional methods of using existing information and logic. Creativity involves generating
new ideas or solutions by combining existing knowledge or behaviours in innovative ways.
This approach is essential when faced with problems that cannot be solved through
conventional means or require unconventional solutions. Creativity is characterized by
divergent thinking, which involves exploring multiple possibilities and generating a variety
of ideas rather than converging on a single solution. Unlike convergent thinking, where a
problem is seen as having only one correct answer, creativity allows for flexibility and
openness to different perspectives.

Convergent thinking, on the other hand, is a logical method of problem-solving that


focuses on finding a single solution by using previous knowledge and applying logical
reasoning. This approach works well for routine problems with clear solutions but may be
insufficient when creativity is required to find novel or unconventional solutions.

For example, while convergent thinking can be used to identify similarities between a
pencil and a pen based on their shared features, such as being used for writing and having
similar shapes, creativity may be necessary to envision alternative uses or innovative designs
for these objects. As such, creativity involves thinking outside the box, exploring new
possibilities, and generating original ideas or solutions, making it a valuable skill for tackling
complex or ambiguous problems.

Divergent thinking is a cognitive process that stands in contrast to convergent


thinking. While convergent thinking aims to find a single correct answer or solution to a
problem, divergent thinking involves generating multiple ideas or possibilities starting from a
single point of reference. This approach encourages creativity and exploration of various
alternatives. For instance, if asked about the uses of a pencil, convergent thinking might lead
to the answer "to write," while divergent thinking would prompt the individual to brainstorm
multiple uses such as poking holes, weighting a kite's tail, or even as a makeshift weapon.

Characteristics of creative, divergent thinkers include:

1. Automatic Task Engagement: Highly creative individuals often experience their most
productive divergent thinking periods while engaged in automatic or routine tasks like
walking or swimming. These tasks occupy some attention processes, allowing the mind to
engage in creative thinking with fewer inhibitions.

2. Subconscious Processing: Divergent thinkers often make connections and associations at a


subconscious level, just below conscious awareness. This allows ideas to flow freely without
being constrained by higher-level mental processes.

3. Less Prone to Mental Blocks: Divergent thinkers are less likely to be hindered by barriers
to problem-solving such as functional fixedness. They are more inclined to consider
unconventional solutions to challenges, even in seemingly mundane situations like being
caught in the rain without an umbrella.

Despite its importance, creative, divergent thinking is sometimes overlooked in


education. While some individuals may naturally possess greater creativity, it is a skill that
can be developed. However, cultural factors can influence the extent to which creativity is
encouraged or valued. For example, some cultures prioritize adherence to tradition over
innovation, limiting opportunities for creative expression.

Contrary to popular belief, creative people are often quite ordinary. According to
Csikszentmihalyi (1997):

1. Creative people usually have a broad range of knowledge about a lot of subjects and
are good at using mental imagery.
2. Creative people aren’t afraid to be different—they are more open to new experiences
than many people, and they tend to have more vivid dreams and daydreams than
others do.
3. Creative people value their independence.
4. Creative people are often unconventional in their work, but not otherwise.

You might also like