Cognitive Mising as Applied to Stripclubbing . . .
jablake
I failed this test, which didn't come as a surprise.
John is ogling Mary, the hot stripper, but she is ogling Jane. John is married and Jane is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?
A)Yes B) No C) Cannot be determined
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
Supposedly, highly intelligent people were no more likely to solve this type of problem than were people of lower intelligence. That surprised me. However, once the reason for the failure was explained it made a lot more sense. It is merely the desire/programming to grab the low hanging fruit i.e. take short cuts.
A trip to the VIP with Mary and Jane $110 in total. Mary costs $100 more than Jane. How much did Jane cost? (I failed this test too, btw.)
Many people quickly say $10 without thinking further and realizing that this cannot be right. Mary would then have to cost $110 and the total cost would then be $120 instead of the require $110.
Point? When in a stripclub doesn't necessarily take the low hanging fruit i.e. the quick and easy conclusion.
Anyway, this little post was inspired by the book "What Intelligence Tests Miss the psychology of rational thought," by Keith E. Stanovich. The examples that I gave were pretty much copied from examples on pages 70 thru 72 thereof.
IMO, the idea that stippers main focus equals $$$ is low hanging fruit . . . might be good or then again maybe not. IOWs, the cognitive miser's reap maybe less than a more thoughtful consideration would harvest. Agree? Disagree?
John is ogling Mary, the hot stripper, but she is ogling Jane. John is married and Jane is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?
A)Yes B) No C) Cannot be determined
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
Supposedly, highly intelligent people were no more likely to solve this type of problem than were people of lower intelligence. That surprised me. However, once the reason for the failure was explained it made a lot more sense. It is merely the desire/programming to grab the low hanging fruit i.e. take short cuts.
A trip to the VIP with Mary and Jane $110 in total. Mary costs $100 more than Jane. How much did Jane cost? (I failed this test too, btw.)
Many people quickly say $10 without thinking further and realizing that this cannot be right. Mary would then have to cost $110 and the total cost would then be $120 instead of the require $110.
Point? When in a stripclub doesn't necessarily take the low hanging fruit i.e. the quick and easy conclusion.
Anyway, this little post was inspired by the book "What Intelligence Tests Miss the psychology of rational thought," by Keith E. Stanovich. The examples that I gave were pretty much copied from examples on pages 70 thru 72 thereof.
IMO, the idea that stippers main focus equals $$$ is low hanging fruit . . . might be good or then again maybe not. IOWs, the cognitive miser's reap maybe less than a more thoughtful consideration would harvest. Agree? Disagree?
3 comments
Glad it gave you a smile. :) You may be the only one on the board that liked it. :) I finally got one of the book's questions correct. To wit:
Premise 1: All living things need water
Premise 2: Roses need water
*Therefore*, Roses are living things
Supposedly, 70 percent of university students got this incorrect agreeing that Premise 1 required the conclusion that Roses are living things. (Steam engines need water---does that mean they're living things.)
Most likely the students prior knowledge that Roses are living things bushwhacked their thinking. The old short cut i.e. cognitive mising in action again.
Not cognitive mising, but it is related and potentially practical: Let's say you normally spend $200 for 10 dances on your favorite stripper. And, have been seeing her on a regular basis. After buying the dances and giving her the $200, ask if she'd accept an additional $150 *now* in exchange for 10 dances on your next visit. I'm not saying this is optimal, but it does help, imo, put in perspective cognitive mising i.e. short cuts as well as the need for present gratification when delayed gratification is normally the better deal. (The book's example was some people preferring a $100 from the government today rather than $115 in 7 days.)