This is a hub for a series of posts arguing that human cognition is much simpler than we tend to think. Much of what seems to be complex processing turns out to be the result of simple mechanisms aided by complex structure located elsewhere.
[Epistemic status: somewhat speculative. This is an attempt to summarize a lot of work that isn't strictly speaking in my field. A lot of the sources I cite are dated and may no longer reflect consensus in the literature (if they ever did, which is unlikely). Any errors should be attributed to my summarizing rather than to the original sources.]
1. Bayes and Bounds is an introduction to the blog that hints at many of the ideas developed later. This post is probably not necessary for following the main thesis. This post was written as a quick introduction and uses a few technical terms without defining them. Later posts make a more concerted effort to define relevant terms.
2. Simple Rules, Complex Behavior introduces the idea that apparent complexity may be the result of simple mechanisms interacting with a complex environment or of many simple mechanisms interacting with each other and producing an emergent whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
3. Heuristics: the Good, the Bad, and the Necessary reviews three schools of thought on heuristics, or simple rules of processing that are often used without conscious awareness or effort. Heuristics are commonly associated with irrationality, but this is probably an oversimplification (at best). Heuristics are likely necessary for cognition, as the complex processing advocated to replace them is impossible. An even more radical view is introduced, which argues that heuristics are actually better than rational, optimizing processes.
4. The Bias-Variance Tradeoff and Why People Are So Bad at Predicting the Future and When Do Heuristics Work? Or: Why Bias Can Be Good discusses how simple heuristics can (sometimes) outperform algorithms with more information and processing power. It expands on (2)'s discussion of the power of environments and suggests that whether you make a good or bad decision may often be more about the environment than your cognition. (The long title is a reference to the tradeoff discussed in the post).
5. The Representation and Framing of Structure introduces another source of structure that can have profound effects on cognition. The way problems are represented can dramatically affect how we respond to them. Different framings of the same problem can influence how much processing is required to solve it and may determine whether or not it is solved at all. Moreover, because framing is opaque, these important effects are often overlooked.
6. Structure in the Mind picks up where framing left off and asks how we choose a frame when faced with a problem. Answering this question further reduces the amount of complexity of human behavior attributable to complex cognitive mechanisms and explains how individuals differences in framing might arise.
Comments
Post a Comment