The game is a card game.

October 26, 2005 7:19 PM

How to learn about difficult things
posted by iffley (26 comments total)

Good post. I'm a new PhD student and I need all the procrastination, er, advice I can get!
posted by zpousman at 7:42 PM on October 26, 2005 [1 favorite]

A Gloss:

Our difficulty with the Wason task is an example of our being ill-suited to doing abstract mental tasks, as opposed to those that are a propos of survival.

We therefore need to develop special principles to help us get through the tough thinking; here are three such principles.

1) Develop an attitude that you are contributing to an important large-scale project.

2) Cultivate long-term vision

3) Develop social roles for yourself that demand of that you use the skills you want to develop.

Comment: the third seems to be the less commonsense technique, and, perhaps, the most powerful of the three. It is fairly easy to forget to "think long term." However, if you do something like take on a leadership role in Toastmasters or a teaching job in order to force yourself to be a clearer thinker and verbal articulator, THAT creates the kind of pressure that seems to work.
posted by O Blitiri at 8:04 PM on October 26, 2005

Fascinating. I remember explaining to a friend who is an engineer than I basically get paid to sit around and think and he thought that was great! Not real work at all! That was when I realised I needed to get out more: I know I often, usually, socialise with other scientists and it is largely down to the fact that we view the world the same way: no matter our religious or political affiliation we have the same ground rules and the same ultra-practical mindset. Sometimes I find talking to non-research-scientists about topics like evolution, global warming or conservation almost impossible, due to their reliance on opinons rather than data. My problem of course, but it illustrates that you really do train your mind to work differently if you do research long enough.
posted by fshgrl at 8:45 PM on October 26, 2005

I can find plenty of colloquial evidence for these principles. And, like much of what improvement gurus like Covey tout, they're principles that those who practice them have usually arrived at intuitively and independently. Interesting to see them spelled out.

This was a good post if only for the fact that it was a good exercise in suppressing my jerking knee upon seeing the phrases "I'm a theoretical physicist" and "Stephen Covey" in the same article.
posted by gramschmidt at 8:47 PM on October 26, 2005

Sometimes I find talking to non-research-scientists about topics like evolution, global warming or conservation almost impossible, due to their reliance on opinons rather than data.

What? You prefer reasoned, informed idea exchange to emotion and sophistry? Well then it's a good thing that that doesn't accurately describe 90% of the hot-button threads here.
posted by gramschmidt at 8:56 PM on October 26, 2005

Just what I need - something else to make me feel stupid.
posted by dg at 9:10 PM on October 26, 2005

I liked this post. I wish there were some more secrets in here though :-/
posted by onalark at 9:20 PM on October 26, 2005

I liked it too - though, don't you have to turn the "B" card over as well? If there's a vowel on the other side, then the rule has been broken. So I'm not sure how that maps exactly to someone drinking diet coke. Unless, of course, they're under 18, and the coke is mixer with spirits.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 12:00 AM on October 27, 2005

"Our difficulty with the Wason task is an example of our being ill-suited to doing abstract mental tasks, as opposed to those that are a propos of survival."

Yes, and this interpretation is central to evolutionary psychology, which is controversial.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:36 AM on October 27, 2005

Jon Mitchell, "Each card has a letter on one side, and a number on the other side."
posted by callmejay at 12:46 AM on October 27, 2005

Ahh, the number B.
posted by Mach3avelli at 1:29 AM on October 27, 2005

I liked it too - though, don't you have to turn the "B" card over as well?

No, because "The rule is simply this: if a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side." However, that rule does NOT say the reverse must also be true. It would be possible to have a consonant on one side and an even number on the other. So, if you see an even number, that doesn't tell you anything about the flip side. Only if you see a vowel can you make an accurate statement about what is on the flip side.

The "if" clause (the front part) is the necessary condition. The "then" clause (the back part) is the sufficient condition. To change an "if" statement such that the front and back parts are both necessary and sufficient, the rule would have to read "A card has a vowel on one side if and only if it has an even number on the other side."

But I got it wrong too. And that's his point. Even if you know the directionality of if->then clauses, you still can get the question wrong when responding quickly or intuitively.
posted by mono blanco at 1:49 AM on October 27, 2005

Thanks, that's a very impressive essay. May I ask how you came across it?
posted by grahamwell at 2:12 AM on October 27, 2005

The colloquial use of the word 'if' does mean 'if and only if', or the distinction between these two meanings is blurred or irrelevant. I feel that a large part of that little trick rests on that confusion between the common (vague) usage, and the logical meaning of 'if'.

Put it this way: if (and only if) a consonant is one one side of the card an odd number can appear on the other side. Cards: A B 2 1. I think it's somewhat easier. Is the point that it's easier for us to understand 'if and only if's? Or is it just experience, as people have more experience with underage drinking than with arbitrary logic card games? Are there any studies that shed light on these hypotheses?

Interesting reading, despite my gripe with this particular hook. Definitely rings true.
posted by breath at 3:21 AM on October 27, 2005

The game is a card game. You are shown four cards. Each card has a letter on one side, and a number on the other side. You see only one side of each card; you see “A B 2 1” on the visible faces of the four cards.

...

The rule is simply this: if a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.

Here's my take: I agree with the author that you have to turn over the first and fourth cards, and that you don't have to turn over the third. But I'd want to turn over the second card, because I'm not convinced by the statement "Each card has a letter on one side, and a number on the other side." I need to make sure that nobody's playing silly buggers.
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:33 AM on October 27, 2005

The colloquial use of the word 'if' does mean 'if and only if'

You think?

If it rains, I won't go to work today.
I don't go to work today.
You conclude that it rained, which would not follow, unless I said "IAOI it rains". Your argument being that most people would assume that I meant IAOI. hmm...

I agree that it would probably be a conclusion, but only a half-hearted one -- one you'd probably still ask about -- "oh, did it rain?" rather than conclude in any definite way. Of course, logically, it would not even be a suggestion, but I think the suggestion is implicit in the statement, between persons. Someone would think I was being a smartass if I said "oh, there were a million other reasons why I also would not go to work". Mentioning the premise in conversation suggests that it's an unusual setup, worthy of mention. Otherwise, it's a comic reversal. If it rains, I won't go to work. "Oh really, what were your reasons all last week?"

Yeah, I think I agree with you.
posted by dreamsign at 7:05 AM on October 27, 2005

An excellent essay. The author states that were he asked to write a letter to a ten-years-younger self, that this is what he would write.

I wish I had learned these things ten years ago.

Thanks, that's a very impressive essay. May I ask how you came across it?

I'd like to know this, too.
posted by soiled cowboy at 7:55 AM on October 27, 2005

The colloquial use of the word 'if' does mean 'if and only if', or the distinction between these two meanings is blurred or irrelevant. I feel that a large part of that little trick rests on that confusion between the common (vague) usage, and the logical meaning of 'if'.

No, I don't agree. If the "if" in the rule were interpreted to mean "if and only if," then you would have to turn over all four cards to verify the rule. But that's not how most people respond; most say that you'd have to turn over the first and third cards only. Since people aren't generally responding that you need to turn over all four cards, your argument that colloquial-if means formal-if-and-only-if fails.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:31 AM on October 27, 2005

Great post, thanks.
posted by blendor at 12:02 PM on October 27, 2005

Mono Bianco, callmejay spotted my error there - Each has a number on one side, a letter on the other, which I'd missed. Without that rule, you do have to turn over B, to check to see if there's a vowel on the other side, which violates the Vowel/Even number pairing, B clearly not being an even number.

But yes, this just serves to drive the author's point home even harder. I think I'll stick to working as a bouncer rather than a croupier.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 12:47 PM on October 27, 2005

grahamwell, soiled cowboy: how did I find the link? A del.icio.us user linked to it whose links list I checked out because he'd used some of the same unusual tag keywords as me. Why do you ask?
posted by iffley at 1:09 PM on October 27, 2005

Thanks so much. A good read!
posted by shoepal at 7:36 AM on October 28, 2005

I'm with shoepal. Thanks!
posted by Eideteker at 8:36 AM on October 28, 2005

excellent. wish I'd read this back in grad school.... oh well, too late now. :P
posted by mhh5 at 1:17 AM on October 30, 2005

excellent. wish I'd read this back in grad school.... oh well, too late now. :P
posted by mhh5 at 1:19 AM on October 30, 2005

Iffley, I was just wondering if you knew the author, he sounds like an interesting guy. The conference sounds interesting too. There's a lot of fun stuff going on in Australia it seems.
posted by grahamwell at 4:28 AM on November 5, 2005