Information Processing Theory. 15 Common Cognitive Distortions. 01.31.2006 - Language affects half of what we see. UC Berkeley Press Release Language affects half of what we see By William Harms, University of Chicago, and Robert Sanders, UC Berkeley Media Relations | 31 January 2006 BERKELEY – The language we speak affects half of what we see, according to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Chicago. Scholars have long debated whether our native language affects how we perceive reality - and whether speakers of different languages might therefore see the world differently. The idea that language affects perception is controversial, and results have conflicted. A paper published this month in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences supports the idea - but with a twist.
The paper, "Whorf Hypothesis is Supported in the Right Visual Field but not in the Left," is by Aubrey Gilbert, Richard Ivry and Paul Kay at UC Berkeley and Terry Regier at the University of Chicago. MSNBC - How to Think About the Mind. How to Think About the MindNeuroscience shows that the 'soul' is the activity of the brain Sept. 27 issue - Every evening our eyes tell us that the sun sets, while we know that, in fact, the Earth is turning us away from it.
Astronomy taught us centuries ago that common sense is not a reliable guide to reality. Today it is neuroscience that is forcing us to readjust our intuitions. People naturally believe in the Ghost in the Machine: that we have bodies made of matter and spirits made of an ethereal something. Modern neuroscience has shown that there is no user. This resistance is not surprising. The disconnect between our common sense and our best science is not an academic curiosity.
Prozac shouldn't be dispensed like mints, of course, but the reason is not that it undermines the will. To many, the scariest prospect is medication that can make us better than well by enhancing mood, memory and attention. . © 2004 Newsweek, Inc. Does Language Shape What We Think? My seventh-grade English teacher exhorted us to study vocabulary with the following: "We think in words. The more words you know, the more thoughts you can have. " This compound notion that language allows you to have ideas otherwise un-haveable, and that by extension people who own different words live in different conceptual worlds -- called "Whorfianism" after its academic evangelist, Benjamin Lee Whorf -- is so pervasive in modern thought as to be unremarkable. Eskimos, as is commonly reported, have myriads of words for snow, affecting how they perceive frozen percipitation. A popular book on English notes that, unlike English, "French and German can distinguish between knowledge that results from recognition ... and knowledge that results from understanding.
" For all its social success, Whorfianism has fared less well scientifically. Oh, and Eskimos don't have all that many words for snow. The lack of number words had a profound and surprising effect on what the Pirahã could do. Enhancing Brains. Editor’s note: In 2008, Henry T. Greely, a professor at Stanford Law School, co-authored a commentary in Nature; it concluded that “safe and effective cognitive enhancers will benefit both the individual and society.” The article inspired an impressive number of responses from readers, and the debate has continued in scholarly journals and the mainstream media in the years following publication. Here Professor Greely builds on that momentum, arguing that only some concerns about cognitive enhancements are justified and proper attention is needed to address such issues. He contends that rather than banning cognitive enhancements, as some have suggested, we should determine rules for their use.
Probing that question is my ultimate aim in this article, but we will get there somewhat indirectly. Note first, though, that this is largely a hypothetical discussion, as cognitive enhancement remains largely in the future. Why Cognitive Enhancement—and What Kinds of Enhancements? Dan Dennett on dangerous memes. Dunning–Kruger effect. Cognitive bias about one's own skill The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias that describes the systematic tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of this ability. The term may also refer to the tendency of high performers to underestimate their skills.
It was first identified by the psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999. In popular culture, the Dunning–Kruger effect is sometimes misunderstood as claiming that people with low intelligence are generally overconfident, instead of denoting specific overconfidence of people unskilled at particular areas. The Dunning–Kruger effect has been demonstrated across multiple studies in a wide range of tasks from fields such as business, politics, medicine, driving, aviation, spatial memory, examinations in school, and literacy.
A number of explanations for, and criticisms of, the Dunning–Kruger effect have been proposed. Measurement, analysis, and investigated tasks [edit] Changing minds and persuasion -- How we change what others think. Clay Shirky: How cognitive surplus will change the world | Video.