Presentation on theme: "Sternberg, Ch. 1: Ray Hyman. Terminology Smart—intelligence, a property of people Stupid—many different conceptualizations, a property of behavior, state,"— Presentation transcript:
Terminology Smart—intelligence, a property of people Stupid—many different conceptualizations, a property of behavior, state, or person If treat stupidity & intelligence as DOMAIN- DEPENDENT, then makes more sense that a smart person can be stupid If stupidity is acting below own ability level, then a stupid person can’t act stupidly!!
Varieties of conceptualizations Failure to fully use capabilities; failure to exploit learning opportunities Personality variables can cause stupid behavior Failure to recognize changes in environment; over-reliance on old habits (mindlessness)
conceptualizations Irrationality—failure to use cognitive capabilities to guide pursuit of goals Stupidity in the eye of the observer; stupid behavior may be just way of handling situation that is different from what observer had in mind Foolish instead of stupid—maybe smart people can’t be stupid, but can be foolish
examples Leverrier & discovery of new planet; over- reliance on what worked previously Piltdown man—failure to be sufficiently skeptical, especially if finding supports what one wants to believe; failure to question due to belief other experts must have done their homework
Examples Alfred Russell Wallace—data schmata, I like my theory Arthur Conan Doyle—own smartness in critiquing opposing views makes one stupid, lacking objectivity
Intelligence: fixed or not? Two types of people: those who believe intelligence is fixed trait, and those who don’t Basic premise: if believe is fixed, can become defensive & avoid situations that can make one look less intelligent Such avoidance decreases learning opportunities
Self perception and intelligence Fixed types—take failures as indication they are dumb and worthless; malleable types--think of failure as learning opportunity; focus on what to change in future What about common sense? Does your worth as a person depend on belief you have it?
Manipulations of belief Basic design: Task 1, then praise for either (a) being smart or (b) working hard; then difficult Task 2, then opportunity to do additional problems How will each group react to failures on Task 2? Which group will choose to do additional problems?
beliefs Some believe smart people don’t have to work hard; thus, avoid working hard themselves, as it would indicate they are not smart Defensive behaviors avoid chances to learn Self-handicapping
realities High level ability actually requires much effort, even for smart (talented) people Ten year rule: minimum of 10 years of intensive, focused effort to develop much expertise
Managerial incompetence Why do previously successful people end up being pressured to step aside after surprising lapses in judgment? 3 main types of reasons: Different abilities involved than academic/standard intelligence Expertise narrows what are good at Personality factors can cause problems
Book smarts vs. street smarts Academic problems vs. managerial tasks Real-world problems: ill-defined need to be formulated by the problem solver are missing information have multiple solutions have multiple methods of solving are related to everyday experience
Rational vs. actual management approaches Logical approach looks nice on paper, but few managers actually work that way Such logical approaches do not work well with real-world problems Actual managers less linear, more guesswork and flexibility in getting to a solution; e.g., planning, strategies, & assessment more mixed together
Biases affecting management Acquisition biases: availability heuristic mental set too limited by their expertise/viewpoint confirmation bias (see what expect to see; focus on positive instances) concrete info overweighted (e.g., specific example vs. actuarial)
Biases affecting management Processing biases: inconsistent use of evaluative criteria rigid adoption of & maintenance of opinion can’t estimate nonlinear effects reliance on previously effective solutions too much faith in small sample data anchoring & adjustment heuristic
Biases affecting management Response biases: wishful thinking illusion of control
Experienced managers Take action, don’t wait for some analysis to figure everything out; get going and make corrections as necessary Imagine goal and invent ways of getting there Tacit knowledge: experts usually can’t explain what it is they know or why they are effective problem solvers; such knowledge not taught formally
Expertise Domain-specific knowledge: more important than basic logic skill (ex. from computer expert systems) Tacit knowledge predicts managerial competence more than IQ scores As expertise increases in one area, competence is narrower; does not necessarily generalize to other domains
Expertise Sustained intense, focused effort needed to gain expertise
Personality & temperament Managers/supervisors much more a source of stress for workers than they realize Emotional stability & insensitivity often problems See Table 3.2: Characteristics of Failed Managers (p. 59)
Personality & temperament Three main types of failed managers: High likeability floaters—everyone likes them, promoted due to personality, but don’t accomplish much Hommes de ressentiment—appear to be charming & composed, but hold deep resentments toward others that eventually are their undoing
Personality & temperament Narcissists—think they are wonderful, entitled, have many apparent positive qualities, But: also manipulative, self- serving, egotistical, exploitative, don’t give others credit, blame others for failures; eventually offend someone in power or fall due to revolt by subordinates
Sternberg, Ch. 4: The Engine of Folly Focus is on recurrent foolishness when person is capable of doing better Two types of folly: Blind folly: person unaware of how foolish their behavior is; self-deception involved Plain folly: realize behavior is unwise, but do it anyway
Model Emergent activity switching—determines which behaviors will occur; although some cognitive management involved, processes have their own dynamics as well Buildup of tendency to engage in a behavior moves it toward tipping point Drives (e.g., thirst) increase odds of switching to behavior to deal with them
terminology Mistuning—subparts of switching not well tuned to generate adaptive behavior (e.g., timing of buildup, length of focal behavior) Entrenchment—counterproductive pattern becomes habitual Undermanagement—allowing lower-level drivers to be totally in control
Problems with activity switching Impulsiveness—drivers build up quickly with not enough management Neglect--drivers too weak or too slowly build up; never reach tipping point Procrastination—suppressed buildup of drivers (avoidant thinking; rationalization) Vacillation—choosing one path partly satisfies drive, so another path builds up
Problems with activity switching Backsliding—once drivers for some new path partly satisfied, some other driver, due to “force of habit” may re-emerge (diets) Indulgence—excessive attempt to satisfy drivers that can be hard to satisfy; also distraction from worry, including worry about indulgence itself
Problems with activity switching Overdoing—like indulgence, but work instead of pleasure related Walking the edge—attempt to highly manage, maintaining just short of criticality
How to handle activity switching more effectively Controlling mistuning, to help control the buildup or to keep it from reaching criticality: arrange environmental stimuli (picture of you in swimsuit on refrigerator); implement specific intentions (subgoals) Entrenchment problems: avoid extreme efforts; see small gains positively; relaxation techniques
Handling switching effectively Management—count to 10; be more mindful (e.g., don’t eat without awareness; be aware of effects of what you say on others); substitute activities
Willpower & delay of gratification Standard lab test of delay of gratification— forbidden treat test Longitudinal data show correlations between performance in childhood and success in adulthood If treat is present, person has harder time resisting it; if just picture is present, it is easier to wait
Two systems of self-regulation “Hot” system—emotion-based; present at birth; under stimulus control; evolutionary basis; amygdala active “Cold” system—rational, emotionally- neutral; developed with age; hippocampus & frontal lobe active
Two systems: implications Self-control in presence of stimuli that can activate “hot” system depends on good use of “cold” system Ex. Of “good use”—thinking of stimulus in some other way (pizza—grease, fat, calories) instead of thinking of usual evoking aspects (taste, aroma, texture) Ex. Of good use: distraction techniques; thinking “fun thoughts”
Two systems: implications Implementation plans—help with self control by creating an automatic positive response to stimuli (so hot response doesn’t get activated)
Rejection sensitivity example Some people perceive cues indicating rejection, even when they are not there May have suffered rejection in childhood Tend to react emotionally (hot) to situations that would cause neutral (cold) reaction in others, and hot reaction can lead to hostile, even violent, behavior
Individual difference in RS People with high rejection sensitivity (RS) but who have high strategic self-control, act normally People with high RS but low strategic self- control get hostile & aggressive High self control strategies: reappraisal (did they really mean it to hurt me?); avoid focusing on negative behaviors of others
Sternberg, Ch. 6: Halpern Clinton-Lewinsky scandal How could a smart person be so dumb?
Clinton-Lewinsky Evidence he had gotten away with other affairs for years (e.g., reinforcement, no punishment) Public denials did not result in bad consequences over those years (e.g., lying and getting away with it) Public officials having affairs: not unheard of; thus, social context is “supportive”
Clinton-Lewinsky Data show affairs rather common in general population, so why not among politicians? So, what went wrong for Clinton?
Clinton-Lewinsky Changing environment—similar to today’s (temporarily, I think) changing attitude about televised events (Janet Jackson); Clinton did not figure that Watergate (Nixon) had opened up presidential behavior to scrutiny; previously had been shielded with privacy claims
Clinton-Lewinsky Nature of evidence—Clinton still might have gotten away with it if the DNA evidence on the dress had not been available Reliance on strategies that always worked in the past (denial; hurt reputation of accusers)
Sternberg, Ch. 10 Moldoveanu & Langer Add to examples of “stupid sign” incidents: “Is there a stick over there that has one end on it?” “No, all those sticks have 2 ends.” Language can be taken literally or figuratively Others’ “stupidity” can just be due to their representation being different from ours
stupidity We know what we mean, and if they don’t, they must be stupid Perhaps stupidity is in the mind of the beholder!
Mindlessness Proceeding by habit, thinking in habitual mindsets, governed by rules & routines Mindlessness can be due to repetition or to latching on to one idea without considering others (e.g., accepting something without questioning or analyzing it); ideas accepted mindlessly more if presented authoritatively
Cognitive incompetence? Many cognitive psychology claims about our heuristic biases that make us look stupid are not ecologically valid—evolutionary psychology argues that if we act stupidly, the problem probably is artificial, one we didn’t evolve to handle
Cognitive incompetence? Another reason “heuristic bias” experiments make us look stupid: subject interprets question or situation in a different way than intended by experimenter Self-attributions regarding stupidity—what is source of self-judgments? Others’ reactions? Standardized tests? Behavior compared to others?
Mindfulness Views situations from several perspectives Involves thinking “outside the box” instead of being constrained in how to think about or conceptualize a problem
Sternberg, Ch. 11 Why powerful people can be foolish: Feelings of omniscience, omnipotence, & invulnerability Wisdom: application of tacit knowledge toward common good, balancing interests of self, others now & later, to achieve personal-environment balance now & later
foolishness Not meeting all the previous wisdom criteria; specifics will depend on which aspect is not met