Deductive reasoning is essential to most of our scientific and technological achievements and is a crucial component to scientific education. In Western culture, deductive reasoning first emerged as a dedicated mode of thinking in the field of geometry, but the cognitive mechanisms behind this major intellectual achievement remain largely understudied. Here, we report an unexpected cognitive bias in geometric reasoning that challenges existing theories of human deductive reasoning. Over two experiments involving almost 250 participants, we show that educated adults systematically mistook as valid a set of elementary invalid inferences with points and circles in the Euclidean plane. Our results suggest that people got "locked" on unwarranted conclusions because they tended to represent geometric premisses in specific ways and they mainly relied on translating, but not scaling, the circles when searching for possible conclusions. We conducted two further experiments to test these hypotheses and found confirmation for them. Although mathematical reasoning is considered as the hallmark of rational thinking, our findings indicate that it is not exempt from cognitive biases and is subject to fundamental counter-intuitions. Our empirical investigations into the source of this bias provide some insights into the cognitive mechanisms underlying geometric deduction, and thus shed light on the cognitive roots of intuitive mathematical reasoning.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11627530 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00169 | DOI Listing |
Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm
March 2025
Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh 11159, Saudi Arabia.
Background: Ensuring patient safety is of paramount importance in healthcare systems. Rising concerns about medical errors in the UK have necessitated a greater focus on studying the nature of such errors, particularly those involving high-risk medications.
Objectives: To conduct a retrospective analysis of incidents related to patient safety in the UK based on data from the National Rporting and Learning System (NRLS).
Adv Med Educ Pract
December 2024
Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Background: Numerous challenges exist in effectively bridging theory and practice in the teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning, despite an abundance of theoretical models. This study compares clinical reasoning practices and decisions between medical students and expert clinicians using a problem-solving framework from the learning sciences, which identifies clinical reasoning as distinct, observable actions in clinical case solving. We examined students at various training stages against expert clinicians to address the research question: How do expert clinicians and medical students differ in their practices and decisions during the diagnostic process?.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFSci Rep
December 2024
AI Graduate School, Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology, Gwangju, 61005, Republic of Korea.
Lies are ubiquitous and often happen in social interactions. However, socially conducted deceptions make it hard to get data since people are unlikely to self-report their intentional deception behaviors, especially malicious ones. Social deduction games, a type of social game where deception is a key gameplay mechanic, can be a good alternative to studying social deceptions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFFront Oncol
December 2024
Department of Community Health, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Background: Prostate cancer is a common cancer among men globally and its treatment affects quality of life. Poor patients' perception of prostate cancer services may lead to their late presentation for care, often presenting with the advanced stage of the disease. This may vary from one region to another.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEur J Psychol
November 2024
Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Católica de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
In this paper, we investigate whether collaborative group performance is better than individual performance in solving a syllogism evaluation task. We hypothesise that collaborative group settings will outperform individual settings and that the belief bias effect will be mitigated in a group setting. Two empirical studies were conducted with Argentinian undergraduate students.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!