纠结的物理学:绳结限制了直观的物理推理。

Q1 Social Sciences Open Mind Pub Date : 2024-09-23 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1162/opmi_a_00159
Sholei Croom, Chaz Firestone
{"title":"纠结的物理学:绳结限制了直观的物理推理。","authors":"Sholei Croom, Chaz Firestone","doi":"10.1162/opmi_a_00159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Whereas decades of research have cataloged striking errors in physical reasoning, a resurgence of interest in intuitive physics has revealed humans' remarkable ability to successfully predict the unfolding of physical scenes. A leading interpretation intended to resolve these opposing results is that physical reasoning recruits a general-purpose mechanism that reliably models physical scenarios (explaining recent successes), but overly contrived tasks or impoverished and ecologically invalid stimuli can produce poor performance (accounting for earlier failures). But might there be tasks that persistently strain physical understanding, even in naturalistic contexts? Here, we explore this question by introducing a new intuitive physics task: evaluating the strength of knots and tangles. Knots are ubiquitous across cultures and time-periods, and evaluating them correctly often spells the difference between safety and peril. Despite this, 5 experiments show that observers fail to discern even very large differences in strength between knots. In a series of two-alternative forced-choice tasks, observers viewed a variety of simple \"bends\" (knots joining two pieces of thread) and decided which would require more force to undo. Though the strength of these knots is well-documented, observers' judgments completely failed to reflect these distinctions, across naturalistic photographs (E1), idealized renderings (E2), dynamic videos (E3), and even when accompanied by schematic diagrams of the knots' structures (E4). Moreover, these failures persisted despite accurate identification of the topological differences between the knots (E5); in other words, even when observers correctly perceived the underlying structure of the knot, they failed to correctly judge its strength. These results expose a blindspot in physical reasoning, placing new constraints on general-purpose theories of scene understanding.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"8 ","pages":"1170-1190"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11495958/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tangled Physics: Knots Strain Intuitive Physical Reasoning.\",\"authors\":\"Sholei Croom, Chaz Firestone\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/opmi_a_00159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Whereas decades of research have cataloged striking errors in physical reasoning, a resurgence of interest in intuitive physics has revealed humans' remarkable ability to successfully predict the unfolding of physical scenes. A leading interpretation intended to resolve these opposing results is that physical reasoning recruits a general-purpose mechanism that reliably models physical scenarios (explaining recent successes), but overly contrived tasks or impoverished and ecologically invalid stimuli can produce poor performance (accounting for earlier failures). But might there be tasks that persistently strain physical understanding, even in naturalistic contexts? Here, we explore this question by introducing a new intuitive physics task: evaluating the strength of knots and tangles. Knots are ubiquitous across cultures and time-periods, and evaluating them correctly often spells the difference between safety and peril. Despite this, 5 experiments show that observers fail to discern even very large differences in strength between knots. In a series of two-alternative forced-choice tasks, observers viewed a variety of simple \\\"bends\\\" (knots joining two pieces of thread) and decided which would require more force to undo. Though the strength of these knots is well-documented, observers' judgments completely failed to reflect these distinctions, across naturalistic photographs (E1), idealized renderings (E2), dynamic videos (E3), and even when accompanied by schematic diagrams of the knots' structures (E4). Moreover, these failures persisted despite accurate identification of the topological differences between the knots (E5); in other words, even when observers correctly perceived the underlying structure of the knot, they failed to correctly judge its strength. These results expose a blindspot in physical reasoning, placing new constraints on general-purpose theories of scene understanding.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":32558,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Mind\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"1170-1190\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11495958/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Mind\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00159\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Mind","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00159","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

摘要

数十年的研究记录了物理推理中令人震惊的错误,而人们对直觉物理的重新关注则揭示了人类成功预测物理场景发展的非凡能力。一种旨在解决这些对立结果的主要解释是,物理推理需要一种通用机制来可靠地模拟物理场景(解释最近的成功),但过于复杂的任务或贫乏的、生态学上无效的刺激会产生糟糕的表现(解释先前的失败)。但是,即使在自然情境中,是否也有一些任务会对物理理解造成持续的压力呢?在这里,我们通过引入一项新的直观物理任务来探讨这个问题:评估结和缠结的强度。绳结在不同文化和不同时期无处不在,正确评估绳结的强弱往往关系到安全与危险。尽管如此,5 项实验表明,即使结与结之间的强度差异非常大,观察者也无法分辨。在一系列两选一的强迫选择任务中,观察者看到了各种简单的 "弯曲"(连接两根线的绳结),并决定哪一个需要更大的力量才能解开。虽然这些线结的强度已被充分证明,但无论是自然照片(E1)、理想化效果图(E2)还是动态视频(E3),甚至是线结结构示意图(E4),观察者的判断都完全无法反映这些区别。换句话说,即使观察者正确感知了绳结的基本结构,他们也无法正确判断绳结的强度。这些结果暴露了物理推理中的一个盲点,对场景理解的通用理论提出了新的限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Tangled Physics: Knots Strain Intuitive Physical Reasoning.

Whereas decades of research have cataloged striking errors in physical reasoning, a resurgence of interest in intuitive physics has revealed humans' remarkable ability to successfully predict the unfolding of physical scenes. A leading interpretation intended to resolve these opposing results is that physical reasoning recruits a general-purpose mechanism that reliably models physical scenarios (explaining recent successes), but overly contrived tasks or impoverished and ecologically invalid stimuli can produce poor performance (accounting for earlier failures). But might there be tasks that persistently strain physical understanding, even in naturalistic contexts? Here, we explore this question by introducing a new intuitive physics task: evaluating the strength of knots and tangles. Knots are ubiquitous across cultures and time-periods, and evaluating them correctly often spells the difference between safety and peril. Despite this, 5 experiments show that observers fail to discern even very large differences in strength between knots. In a series of two-alternative forced-choice tasks, observers viewed a variety of simple "bends" (knots joining two pieces of thread) and decided which would require more force to undo. Though the strength of these knots is well-documented, observers' judgments completely failed to reflect these distinctions, across naturalistic photographs (E1), idealized renderings (E2), dynamic videos (E3), and even when accompanied by schematic diagrams of the knots' structures (E4). Moreover, these failures persisted despite accurate identification of the topological differences between the knots (E5); in other words, even when observers correctly perceived the underlying structure of the knot, they failed to correctly judge its strength. These results expose a blindspot in physical reasoning, placing new constraints on general-purpose theories of scene understanding.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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