Going Round in Circles: A Cognitive Bias in Geometric Reasoning.

Q1 Social Sciences Open Mind Pub Date : 2024-11-22 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1162/opmi_a_00169
Yacin Hamami, Marie Amalric
{"title":"Going Round in Circles: A Cognitive Bias in Geometric Reasoning.","authors":"Yacin Hamami, Marie Amalric","doi":"10.1162/opmi_a_00169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"8 ","pages":"1312-1329"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11627530/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Mind","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
绕圈:几何推理中的认知偏差。
演绎推理是我们大多数科技成就的基础,也是科学教育的重要组成部分。在西方文化中,演绎推理首先作为一种专门的思维模式出现在几何领域,但这一重大智力成就背后的认知机制仍未得到充分研究。在这里,我们报告了几何推理中意想不到的认知偏差,挑战了现有的人类演绎推理理论。在涉及近250名参与者的两个实验中,我们表明受过教育的成年人系统地将欧几里得平面上的点和圆的一组基本无效推断误认为是有效的。我们的研究结果表明,人们被“锁定”在没有根据的结论上,因为他们倾向于以特定的方式表示几何前提,他们在寻找可能的结论时主要依赖于平移,而不是缩放圆圈。我们进行了两个进一步的实验来测试这些假设,并为它们找到了证实。尽管数学推理被认为是理性思维的标志,但我们的研究结果表明,它也不能免于认知偏差,并受到基本反直觉的影响。我们对这种偏差来源的实证研究为几何演绎的认知机制提供了一些见解,从而揭示了直观数学推理的认知根源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Open Mind
Open Mind Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
53 weeks
期刊最新文献
Approximating Human-Level 3D Visual Inferences With Deep Neural Networks. Prosodic Cues Support Inferences About the Question's Pedagogical Intent. The Double Standard of Ownership. Combination and Differentiation Theories of Categorization: A Comparison Using Participants' Categorization Descriptions. Investigating Sensitivity to Shared Information and Personal Experience in Children's Use of Majority Information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1