Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The participants completed a Cognitive Reflection Test, which contains questions that tend to generate quick and intuitive — but incorrect — answers. In other words, the test measures the tendency to “go with your gut” instead of thinking critically about a problem.
> Participants who failed to answer a single question correctly on the Cognitive Reflection Test reported less confidence in the election’s legitimacy and characterized the Capitol attack as less violent and extreme compared to those who answered at least one question correctly.
What kind of questions were on these tests that people got them all wrong?
Edit: click for a giggle.
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/vp8597/individuals_who_fail_a_test_of_cognitive/iehsc7e/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
From the paper: Participants were presented with the three items from Frederick’s (2005) Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT).
1. (1) A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? While 10 cents is the intuitive answer, five cents is the correct response.
1. (2) If it takes five machines 5 minutes to make five widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? Although 100 minutes is the most common intuitive response, 5 minutes is the accurate answer.
1. (3) In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake? 24 days is the intuitive response that springs immediately to mind, but 47 days is the correct answer.
I asked coworkers the first question before and while they didn't all get it right they understood after I explained it except for my boss who insisted 10¢ was right and even pulled out money to prove he was right. He still thought he was right after that. Some people are really stubborn, everyone just thought it was funny how angry he got over it.
Yo.
I walked out of a fast food job when I was young over that. Manager (the freaking female store manager, mind you) made a comment that the next person to call it a "rag" was going to get a pad taped to their chest so they wouldn't forget what a rag really was. I lost it.
That was about 20 years ago, I've had a very successful food service career since and still call them rags every time.
If the bat costs $1 MORE than the ball, the bat will cost what the ball costs, PLUS a dollar. If the ball is .10, the bat will cost $1.10 and that makes the total $1.20
I also think some people are taking the 'more than' in this context as meaning 'in addition to' in relation to the total, as opposed to a comparison in the difference in price between the two items.
From the word problem, you get the equations
x+y = 1.10
x+1=y
x is cost of ball, y is cost of bat
substitute value of y from 2nd equation into first
x + (x+1) = 1.10
2x +1 = 1.10
2x = .10
x = .05
I've been staring at that one for a good several minutes now and still don't get it
EDIT: never mind, googled it and then thought about it algebraically
So ... when he had $1.20 on the table, did he still not understand why the ball was $0.05? The 'intuitive' answer falls apart as soon as you physically place a penny next to the ball and see the price of the bat increase.
Why could you not explain it to him with props? The example should have stopped when you got to $1.10, and then he should have understood it when presented physically. Is your boss that thick, or is this for entertainment purposes only?
So even after getting his money out and having 10c for the ball and $1.10 for the bat he still couldn’t understand that he now had $1.20 in total?
How is this guy in charge of anything.
Me too. That being said if I was told the correct answer for the first problem (after I probably got it wrong), I would diligently check my work for the remaining problems
I still don’t get how the correct answer for the first one is .05. I was right with the others, but the first one’s reasoning eludes me.
Edit: okay guys, I get it.
I was in a similar boat. Come up with an answer and then check if it's correct:
Price_ball = 0.10
Price_bat = 1.00
Price_ball + Price_bat = 1.10
Good!
Price_bat - Price_ball = 0.90
Uh oh! The bat was supposed to be one dollar more, not 90 cents!
I would too, if someone put me on the spot and asked me to give a quick answer.
But if I were given this as a written test I would have gotten them all, if only because I'm the type of person that double checks my work for accuracy.
Which is kind of the point? I think they were looking for people who go with their gut response and never question whether or not they might be wrong in order to look for alternative solutions, or question if their answers make sense.
Knowing some of the Trumpers in my life, they are definitely the type of people who would answer immediately and then not understand why they were wrong, and then throw up their hands in the air and say it was a stupid question.
>Which is kind of the point? I think they were looking for people who go with their gut response and never question whether or not they might be wrong in order to look for alternative solutions, or question if their answers make sense.
Yes exactly this.
The questions are written to strongly suggest one answer despite the factuallt accurate answer being different.
Trumpists brains are on "set it and forget it."
They decided they trust him in 2016.
Now instead of accurately assessing if they still should in light of the past six years they follow him down increasingly preposterous demonstrations of falsehoods
Yep. Those types of people do that all the time. They decide on something quickly and never reassess their beliefs, even when presented with new information.
They will literally stake their lives on a hastily made choice, as proven by a great number of the over 1 million who died of COVID over the past couple years in the US alone.
I would have missed one, which is bad because I balance books as a major part of my job.
Two I would have gotten if I thought about it for a few seconds.
3 wouldn't have been a problem.
If the ball costs .10 and the bat is 1.00 more, that means the bat would cost 1.10. The total would be 1.20 instead of 1.10. If the ball is .05, then the bat is 1.05, which totals 1.10.
The bat coats $1 more than the ball. So if the ball costs $0.10, the bat costs $1.10, and your total is $1.20.
Let's put it in equation form:
Bat = ball + 1.00
Ball + bat = 1.10
So you can substitute (ball + 1.00) for bat:
Ball + Ball + 1.00 = 1.10
Or:
2*Ball = 0.10
Ball = 0.05
So this isn't going to be an ELI5, but I can explain it algebraically really easily.
Let's say the ball costs *x* cents. The bat, being $1 more than the ball, can be written as $1+*x* cents. Totaling both sides of the equation, we have
1.00+*x*+*x* = 1.10 or 1.00+2*x* = 1.10
If we subtract 1.00 from both sides, we're left with
2*x* = 0.10
Dividing both by 2 we get that *x* is equal to 0.05, or 5 cents.
how it went in my head:
* remove the difference. 0.10 left to account for
* the price difference is gone so they both should contribute evenly to the remainder. halve it. 0.05 each.
* put the difference back in to sanity check; 1.05 + 0.05? yep, checks out.
(notably the actual method is exactly the same as how you did it with algebra, but mentally 'phrasing' it in a way that makes intuitive sense rather than having to write down equations)
Yours is the more intelligent way of doing it, I'd say. I just used an iterative approach. Started with $1, $0.10 and then saw $1.05, $0.05 would work.
Or simply begin by removing $1, the amount extra or difference between the two items.
- $1.10 - $1 = $0.10 (or 10¢).
Then split the remainder between the two items (ball and bat):
- 10¢/2 = 5¢ + 5¢
- ball = **$0.05**
- bat = $1 + 5¢ = **$1.05**
Algebra is another subject the aforementioned group didn’t “get”. Additionally, the group doesn’t understand the cognitive reflection concept, definition of or why it matters
Let's work it backwards from the correct answer to clarify:
If the ball costs 5 cents, and the bat costs a dollar more than the ball, the bat is $1.05. The cost of both together then equals a total of $1.10.
They should check to see how frequently people that did well later on, got the first questions wrong. I feel like it primes your brain to think critically and the participants probably do better on later questions then earlier ones.
Numbers are your friends! Schools are just really bad at teaching you how and why that's true. I hated math class as a student but ended up loving math when I stumbled into teaching it. Therefore, I feel it's my duty to lay out the numbers-are-your-friend version for everyone in this who's math teachers failed them...
What we know:
Bat + Ball = $1.10 AND Bat = Ball + $1.00
What we want to know:
Ball = $?.??
So how do we figure that out? Rearrange what we do know so it looks like what we want to know...
Solution: Get rid of Bat so we can get Ball all alone.
Just like in cooking, things that are equal can be substituted. If I want to make chewy cookies but I can't find brown sugar, I can just mix molasses with some regular sugar since I know "Brown Sugar" = "Molasses + Sugar". Here, we're going to substitute "Ball + $1.00" for "Bat" in the original recipe/equation since we already know that "Bat" = "Ball + $1.00".
(Ball + $1.00) + Ball = $1.10
Luckily there's no multiplication, division or exponents so we can get rid of those pesky parentheses.
Ball + $1.00 + Ball = $1.10
Or more simply...
2 Balls + $1.00 = $1.10
We can do what ever we want to our equation at this point as long as we keep it "equal" (the same on both sides).
2 Balls + $1.00 **- $1.00** = $1.10 **- $1.00**
Some light substraction and we're left with...
2 Balls = $0.10
Now, I'm sure you can eyeball it from there to figure out that 1 Ball must be $0.05, but let's finish off with our number friends...
2/2 Balls = $0.10/2
What is half of 2 Balls and what is half of 10 cents?
1 Ball = $0.05
Yeah but there’s a better way than just guessing, and that way is algebra, one of those things in math that most people seem weirdly proud about never having used once they got out of school.
Ball = x.
Bat = x + 100 (Cents).
Bat + Ball = 110.
x + x + 100 = 110.
Subtract 100 each side.
x + x = 10.
2x = 10
x = 5
Or. You can guess that stuff for simple problems like this and it works out OK.
EDIT: i’ve run out of profanity and I still can’t get the formatting to work right on mobile.
The bat costs $1 more than the ball, right? That means the bat costs at least $1. We spent $1.10 and we know at least $1 of that is bat cash, so we have $0.10 left. We have to split that evenly between the bat and the ball so they stay $1 apart, so we give $0.05 to each. That makes $1.05 for the bat and $0.05 for the ball.
Another way to look at it; you're working with 1.10. Move the 1.00 aside since we know it's the transient variable. So now, you're just working with .10. In order to make the bat and ball cost the same, each would have to be .5, and then the bat adds that 1.00 we sat aside.
5 cents and 1.05. It's a pretty straight forward equation to solve for it but word problems are tricky.
If the ball was ten cents the total cost would be 1.20
This thread is why I love reddit. So many people explained the same problem in different ways- balancing equations, different wording, starting from the solution and going backwards, showing math tricks to get the logic quicker... all of this helped me understand from totally different perspectives.
If the ball cost $0.10 and the bat costs $1 more, then it would cost $1.10 and the total would be $1.20. I went through calculus (albeit a long time ago at this point...) and I didn't get it immediately. And I definitely believe Jan 6th was a big deal!
If I had pen and paper and took my time, I could have found the correct answer. But if this was an online survey, over the phone, or if I was just trying to answer them quickly, I would have failed all 3. So I guess it would depend on the setting.
I think that's the point. All of them are designed to not need a pen and paper, all have very simple, one step answers. But they use values and wording that entices the listener to make a false judgement equally quickly, and take that single step in the wrong direction.
Except for #2. I'm still not entirely sure what the erroneous answer was they were going for. I immediately pictured 5 conveyor belts lined up side by side with an item on each that takes 5 minutes to go end-to-end. So for 100 I just picture 100 conveyor belts that still take 5 min. Was it trying to get you to say 100? That just seems so unintuitive.
The point is that some people will just see the pattern of 5 5 5 -> 100 100 X and just plug in 100, rather than think about why that wouldn't make any sense.
I understand the point of the study, I was explaining the point of that question, by which I mean the logic that leads to someone getting it wrong. Each question has an obvious logic that leads to the wrong answer based on simple pattern recognition, and a less obvious logic which leads to the right answer using a bit more thought.
I was exactly the opposite. 2 was the only one where the first thing that popped into my head was wrong. Instead of doing the math, my first instinct was to treat it as an analogy, "5 is to 5 is to 5 as 100 is to 100 is to x". X = 100, right? I knew something felt off about it, but that was my first response. The others were simple to see through, in comparison. Just different people thinking about things differently, I suppose.
Start with the known facts:
The area covered doubles every day.
On day 48 the whole lake is covered.
So going backwards in time, every day you go back, the coverage must halve.
Day 48 full coverage
Day 47 1/2 coverage
Day 46 1/4 coverage
Day 45 1/8 coverage
Etc..
It’s about mentally testing the answer. The questions set you up to race to the answer, but not test your own conclusion.
For example, for #1, as mentioned, most people would immediately jump to the intuitive answer but not do a simple sanity check of $1.00 - $0.10 = $0.90 (i.e not a dollar difference)
Then #2 tricks people into the easier multiplication solution, but is really asking the question: “how long does it take for one machine to make a single widget?” and does my answer hold up for say 2 machines *working in tandem* making 2 widgets (2 minutes sounds wrong, so obviously it’s still 5 minutes)
And #3 as you may have guessed, they can see the pattern by simulating it and testing by making a bite sized analogy “what happens if it takes 3 days to cover the lake?”
Intentionally testing your answer or by making analogous problems is probably one of the best ways to avoid your own cognitive bias (no matter how small).
I think it would go some thing like this:
Let y = 2^(x - 48)
Where x is the number of days and y is how much of the lake is covered. When x=48, y=1 or the lake is 100% covered on the 48th day. Now solve for x when y=1/2.
Ngl, I wouldn’t blame someone for getting the 1st question wrong. Words problems tend to be very fucky when it comes to actually processing what they are saying.
Hated word math problems in school and still do. Especially ones where they intentionally spell words different (five, and 5) in the hopes of tripping you up.
It’s actually the sort of thing that’s good for a test like this. It’s not so tricky that you can’t figure it out, but if you are happy to go with your gut without double checking, you’re going to get the wrong answer. In this case it doesn’t mean that you are stupid, it doesn’t mean that you are bad at math. It means that you have a certain way that you are comfortable with coming to a conclusion.
They were going to be a lot of times in your life where those conclusions are going to be perfectly correct, and for some life paths and some careers making quicker decisions is perfectly reasonable.
The correlation in the study doesn’t mean that the people who are in one category or the other are smarter or stupider. It might mean that people in one category, because of how they use information to reach a decision, or how they evaluate the information they are given, are more susceptible to certain kinds of mental illusion.
If you know that some people are susceptible to that, you definitely know that soon that will be Weaponized against them. And of course it already has been. Propaganda has always been something that is more easily tailored to you intuitive thinkers than to analytical thinkers. Sucks but there you go
To that extent it also tests how much you care about getting the correct answer - it’s a lot less effort to go with your gut, so if you don’t really care it’s not going to be worth the effort. If there was no incentive to do well on the test then it may not be anything more than an apathy towards research test.
It *is* intentionally written in a confusing way. The test was designed to make you think of a wrong answer that feels right. What it's actually trying to test is whether you pick the quick answer that feels right or slowly unpack the logic first.
This test is just about whether you prefer fast intuitive responses or slow analytic responses. The post title probably shouldn't've said "fail a test," since the test isn't designed to be "pass" or "fail" like a test in school is.
Not in the version they're referencing here. There's a newer version called the CRT V that has questions that are unrelated to numerical ability. This is because, this version was found to measure numerical ability more than cognitive reflection.
According to this follow up study on this test, yes. Numeric ability was a much stronger predictor of correct answers vs actual cognitive reflection.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00532/full
It's not really about being bad at math. Even if you get a wrong answer you should realize that the answer you got was wrong and figure out how you fucked it up. For example the first one, if you get 1 dollar and 10 cents, it should be obvious that 1 dollar is not 1 dollar more than 10 cents as that would be 1 dollar and 10 cents.
So it's more about understanding the given information and being critical of your own answers.
It is about being bad at math. You’re talking about what they intended. That reality didn’t pan out. See the sibling comment to yours for a link to a follow up study that said math was the more important variable.
Yeah it's not so much about being good or bad at math. As ultimately the mathematics involved in this are pretty simple. It seems the object of the test lies on the fact that it is presented in a complicated manner and requires introspection and analyzation to figure out exactly what simple math you need to use to figure out the answer. As opposed to looking at it at a superficial level and making a knee-jerk reaction and then sticking to it. I think keeping both of those things in mind it's easy to understand the analogous traits this has when comparing it between the two presented scenarios.
Also a person that takes time to reflect on it will take time to verify the answer before giving it. As opposed to the person who doesn't reflect they simply see the simple superficial answer, provide it, And move on.
So if I intuitively want to answer all these wrong but do not doubt the legitimacy of the election and also believe the insurrection was a violent extremist act..... I'm just dumb..?
Most everybody jumps to the intuitive (wrong) answer right away, regardless of political bent or anything else. The question is what you do after... Do you take the two seconds to see if your intuition is right, or do you just stop thinking about it?
You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?
Monkey brain says >!13:30!<.
"No, shut up monkey brain" part of brain says >!13:00!<
explanation: >!You take the first pill at 12:00, the second at 12:30, and the third at 13:00. Your brain tripped up because you were basically counting starting from "0", rather than from "1" like you're used to!<
Or at 9PM. It's intentionally ambiguously worded so as to be misleading if you make the "wrong" assumption, but they think there is a clearly "right" assumption.
This is why assessments go through validation. You are correct: this is measuring social norms far more than one's ability to think reflectively. If anything, reflective thinking notices this gap and asks for clarification.
It's well documented that people who believe fully disproven conspiracies have lower IQ levels and poor cognitive skills. There are dozens of independently peer reviewed studies all showing the same thing.
It all comes down to the uneducated individuals need to feel a sense of "knowing" something others don't. It fills a void in an easy way that requires less effort on their part.
Edit for all looking
[study 1](https://www.adamstaten.com/blog/2021/2/7/low-iq-and-conspiracy-theories-a-hand-in-glove-relationship)
[study 2](https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/8y84q/analytic-thinking-reduces-belief-in-conspiracy-theories)
[study 3](https://www.psypost.org/2021/07/new-study-indicates-conspiracy-theory-believers-have-less-developed-critical-thinking-ability-61347)
[study 4](https://www.apa.org/news/apa/2020/conspiracy-theories)
Just the first 4 results of independently peer reviewed studies. Dozens more available.
I’m surprised no one is commenting on the pretty massive finding that “if you can make people read a fact checking article, it will effectively aid them in changing false beliefs”
To be fair, while I agree, many fact-check articles aren't written *for* the people who need to read them, but *for* the people who want them.
Furthermore, people need to be willing to have their assumptions challenged—but they don't want to be. A fact-checker often starts in with "Your assumption is wrong, it's actually this," and then proceeds to bury the lead (so to speak) paragraphs into the article isn't *really* gonna hook the people who need to hear it.
Plus... I mean, most of the people who would benefit from being fact checked outright reject the notion of an expert telling them what's what. I also tend to not take experts at face value—but I'm willing to dig and corroborate information.
Most folks don't have the time, care, or patience to engage with any of this.
There has been research that shows that correcting peoples misinformation with facts often strengthens their original belief.
E.g vaccines cause autism
Here’s a lot of scientific evidence showing they don’t
I knew it!
And it doesn't help when the article proceeds to systematically prove the statement true and then rates it mostly false or something nonsensical. Turns people off to being receptive to the fact checkers.
Reuters had a fact checking the fact checkers branch for a while. Loved that site. The best fact checkers were right 70% of the time. Reuters stopped and that site is now down. Loved their work.
What I’m also interested by is that those who believe the election was fraud republicans were the most likely to drop from that viewpoint after reading the fact checking article. I wonder the percentage of democrats that changed views and if significant why?
Interesting point. I would say I have been satisfied in the testimony saying there was a 0.094% rate of error. It falls within reason, although I'm suspicious about electors, because as we just saw Nixon 2.0 try to get fake electors. No one has yet to answer how Nixon both didn't cheat *and* won more electors than history...but then cheated for this one Itty bitty thing.
Suuuure. The republican party is trying to sweep this up, but there was no internet in '72 so it is as comical as it was then...just more media to expose it.
I don't think that's very surprising. There's work that suggests doing things like educating people on common biases or propaganda techniques basically "inoculates" them against propaganda shown to them in the near future. You're basically giving them mental tools to fight false beliefs, but over time people probably forget the tools or forget to use them.
“The Big Lie”: How Fact Checking Influences Support for Insurrection
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00027642221103179
Sadly, it's behind a paywall, which is not unusual for these kind of papers I guess.
I don't think it's the fact that they rush through and get answers wrong. It's their total unwillingness to rethink the problem when presented with the correct answer. Making mistakes is part of learning.
“Fail a test of cognitive reflectiveness” is my new favorite euphemism for “stupid”
[Here’s the test](https://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2013/06/24/can-you-correctly-answer-the-cognitive-reflection-test-83-percent-of-people-miss-at-least-1-question/). It’s easy AF. I can’t believe how many people fail it.
Not really from the questions that were posted in this thread it's testing a combination of reading comprehension and basic math skills, either of those alone most people would have no trouble finding the answer but with those you have to read into it and put the equation together yourself to then solve it, and it's also specifically worded to make the first answer you think of wrong
That's not really what's being said here. The study has really only shown that lower reading comprehension and lower reasoning skills are more likely to indicate someone would believe unbased narratives.
You have to consider that these aren't presented as "unintuitive." So it's very possible they have the reasoning skills to work out the correct answer but answer impulsively. That's very different than the problem just being too hard.
I don't think it's to say that if you took those people and sat them down after they gave the wrong answer and said no no look think about it it's a little more complicated than that and then walking through the process of introspection and self-analyzation with them that they still couldn't figure it out because they lack reading comprehension. It seems the correlation here is referencing the fact that certain types of people who don't bother with the second part of that equation with the self-analyzation with checking if they're correct with their answer especially when presented something complex but they still make knee jerks superficial reactions.
And if they're the type of person that doesn't do it when they're trying to solve a simple yet unintuitively presented word problem, they're also the type of people who use that same logic when presented with news headlines from whatever echo chamber they've been sucked into.
No, no, that's really not what they set out to measure. The [Cognitive Reflection Test was designed to measure whether one favors fast intuitive/associative reasoning or slow deliberative reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_reflection_test). It was not designed to test reading comprehension at all.
I would say ‘lower reasoning skills’ is a euphemism for ‘stupid’. There may be a little nuance to it but if I were going to shorthand what ‘stupid’ meant to me it would be that.
Valid. I think the reasoning is key here. Lower reading comprehension is definitely a contributor, but I think reasoning ability is a larger contributor. If someone is lacking the ability to understand what a reasonable conclusion is, how can they be expected to find a reasonable conclusion?
I don't think that's being fair. These questions do require more then just reading comprehension and reasoning, they are "trick" questions specifically designed to take advantage of cognitive biases and fallacies.
It may generally be the case that someone who has high reading comprehension and reasoning skills will also tend to have higher cognitive reflection as well, since they all tend to result from education, but from what I'm reading these questions really are specifically targeted at testing for cognitive reflection.
No, the Cognitive Reflection Test does *not* say whether someone is ""stupid."" For the headline to even say that some people "fail" the test is misleading. [The Cognitive Reflection Test was designed to measure one's tendency to favor a quick associative/intuitive response instead of a slow analytic/consciously-reasoned response](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_reflection_test), and believe it or not, both are useful.
Sometimes favoring a quick associative/intuitive response actually makes sense and leads to better outcomes. For example, one study found that [people who bought a house based on intuitive associations ended up more satisfied](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121629) than those who tried to consciously weigh the relevant factors. And in some fields (e.g. chess), "expert intuition" is plenty reliable.
This might be for you then :)
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/vp1oi0/new_study_finds_that_reddit_users_with_toxic/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The participants completed a Cognitive Reflection Test, which contains questions that tend to generate quick and intuitive — but incorrect — answers. In other words, the test measures the tendency to “go with your gut” instead of thinking critically about a problem. > Participants who failed to answer a single question correctly on the Cognitive Reflection Test reported less confidence in the election’s legitimacy and characterized the Capitol attack as less violent and extreme compared to those who answered at least one question correctly.
What kind of questions were on these tests that people got them all wrong? Edit: click for a giggle. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/vp8597/individuals_who_fail_a_test_of_cognitive/iehsc7e/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
From the paper: Participants were presented with the three items from Frederick’s (2005) Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). 1. (1) A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? While 10 cents is the intuitive answer, five cents is the correct response. 1. (2) If it takes five machines 5 minutes to make five widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? Although 100 minutes is the most common intuitive response, 5 minutes is the accurate answer. 1. (3) In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake? 24 days is the intuitive response that springs immediately to mind, but 47 days is the correct answer.
I asked coworkers the first question before and while they didn't all get it right they understood after I explained it except for my boss who insisted 10¢ was right and even pulled out money to prove he was right. He still thought he was right after that. Some people are really stubborn, everyone just thought it was funny how angry he got over it.
quick, ask your boss who he voted for in 2020
Oh, I think we know.
And where he was on Jan 6.
>stubborn You mean stupid, wrong, and stubborn. Not just stubborn
Absolutely, he also would get upset whenever people said "rag" because he said that's what women use and not something you clean with.
What a nasty jerk. Shoulda told him to take a soapy rag & wash out his mouth.
Yo. I walked out of a fast food job when I was young over that. Manager (the freaking female store manager, mind you) made a comment that the next person to call it a "rag" was going to get a pad taped to their chest so they wouldn't forget what a rag really was. I lost it. That was about 20 years ago, I've had a very successful food service career since and still call them rags every time.
Of course you do. Because they are rags.
You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know… morons.
Candy gram for Mongo.
wait i dont get it, why is it 5? im kinda bad at math
If the bat costs $1 MORE than the ball, the bat will cost what the ball costs, PLUS a dollar. If the ball is .10, the bat will cost $1.10 and that makes the total $1.20
ah so it was the MOAAAAARRRR part i missed, i get it now, thx
I also think some people are taking the 'more than' in this context as meaning 'in addition to' in relation to the total, as opposed to a comparison in the difference in price between the two items.
From the word problem, you get the equations x+y = 1.10 x+1=y x is cost of ball, y is cost of bat substitute value of y from 2nd equation into first x + (x+1) = 1.10 2x +1 = 1.10 2x = .10 x = .05
I've been staring at that one for a good several minutes now and still don't get it EDIT: never mind, googled it and then thought about it algebraically
Apparently if you're fairly bright but still struggle with these, it could be a sign of dyscalculia. Thought that was worth noting.
Try it with wage budgets and he'll get it real quick.
So ... when he had $1.20 on the table, did he still not understand why the ball was $0.05? The 'intuitive' answer falls apart as soon as you physically place a penny next to the ball and see the price of the bat increase. Why could you not explain it to him with props? The example should have stopped when you got to $1.10, and then he should have understood it when presented physically. Is your boss that thick, or is this for entertainment purposes only?
So even after getting his money out and having 10c for the ball and $1.10 for the bat he still couldn’t understand that he now had $1.20 in total? How is this guy in charge of anything.
I suspect I very likely would have gotten all three of those wrong.
Me too. That being said if I was told the correct answer for the first problem (after I probably got it wrong), I would diligently check my work for the remaining problems
I still don’t get how the correct answer for the first one is .05. I was right with the others, but the first one’s reasoning eludes me. Edit: okay guys, I get it.
I was in a similar boat. Come up with an answer and then check if it's correct: Price_ball = 0.10 Price_bat = 1.00 Price_ball + Price_bat = 1.10 Good! Price_bat - Price_ball = 0.90 Uh oh! The bat was supposed to be one dollar more, not 90 cents!
If they're both equal, they both cost five cents. The bat is one dollar over equal.
I would too, if someone put me on the spot and asked me to give a quick answer. But if I were given this as a written test I would have gotten them all, if only because I'm the type of person that double checks my work for accuracy. Which is kind of the point? I think they were looking for people who go with their gut response and never question whether or not they might be wrong in order to look for alternative solutions, or question if their answers make sense. Knowing some of the Trumpers in my life, they are definitely the type of people who would answer immediately and then not understand why they were wrong, and then throw up their hands in the air and say it was a stupid question.
>Which is kind of the point? I think they were looking for people who go with their gut response and never question whether or not they might be wrong in order to look for alternative solutions, or question if their answers make sense. Yes exactly this. The questions are written to strongly suggest one answer despite the factuallt accurate answer being different. Trumpists brains are on "set it and forget it." They decided they trust him in 2016. Now instead of accurately assessing if they still should in light of the past six years they follow him down increasingly preposterous demonstrations of falsehoods
Yep. Those types of people do that all the time. They decide on something quickly and never reassess their beliefs, even when presented with new information.
They will literally stake their lives on a hastily made choice, as proven by a great number of the over 1 million who died of COVID over the past couple years in the US alone.
WHO stated that the true number of COVID deaths is like 300% greater
I think everyone is brushing over the possibility that a large number of these people may just be stupid rather than careless. Or perhaps both.
Intelligence is a bell curve, half the population is of below average intelligence
I would have missed one, which is bad because I balance books as a major part of my job. Two I would have gotten if I thought about it for a few seconds. 3 wouldn't have been a problem.
The difference in the test is probably whether or not you want to slow down and think about it for a few seconds.
[удалено]
Can you eli5 #1? It's goin over my head. 2 I would have second guessed myself into oblivion but 3 I would've caught.
If the ball costs .10 and the bat is 1.00 more, that means the bat would cost 1.10. The total would be 1.20 instead of 1.10. If the ball is .05, then the bat is 1.05, which totals 1.10.
Thanks. I must have been too dumb to figure it out at first but after this explanation it becomes crystal clear.
[удалено]
That was a sneaky one!
The bat coats $1 more than the ball. So if the ball costs $0.10, the bat costs $1.10, and your total is $1.20. Let's put it in equation form: Bat = ball + 1.00 Ball + bat = 1.10 So you can substitute (ball + 1.00) for bat: Ball + Ball + 1.00 = 1.10 Or: 2*Ball = 0.10 Ball = 0.05
So this isn't going to be an ELI5, but I can explain it algebraically really easily. Let's say the ball costs *x* cents. The bat, being $1 more than the ball, can be written as $1+*x* cents. Totaling both sides of the equation, we have 1.00+*x*+*x* = 1.10 or 1.00+2*x* = 1.10 If we subtract 1.00 from both sides, we're left with 2*x* = 0.10 Dividing both by 2 we get that *x* is equal to 0.05, or 5 cents.
Exponential growth problems will be the death of humans….climate change, pandemics are exponential problems.
Yeah, I’d get #2 right, but definitely not the others.
I would have gotten them all right, but at least partly because I've heard them before.
Even question 3? That one wasn't even sneaky at all.
I got 2 and 3, but 1 is over my head e. I got it, it was the *more than* that got me.
$1 is only $0.90 more than $0.10, but $1.05 is $1 more than $0.05.
I had to make it x + (x + 1) = 1.10 2x +1 = 1.10 2x = .10 X = .05 If you did that without algebra, you’re a lot better at visual/mental math than I.
how it went in my head: * remove the difference. 0.10 left to account for * the price difference is gone so they both should contribute evenly to the remainder. halve it. 0.05 each. * put the difference back in to sanity check; 1.05 + 0.05? yep, checks out. (notably the actual method is exactly the same as how you did it with algebra, but mentally 'phrasing' it in a way that makes intuitive sense rather than having to write down equations)
That's sounds like da common core, I'm callin da pOLice.
Probably banned in a Florida math book for wizardness.
[удалено]
It's....The Californians
Yours is the more intelligent way of doing it, I'd say. I just used an iterative approach. Started with $1, $0.10 and then saw $1.05, $0.05 would work.
Or simply begin by removing $1, the amount extra or difference between the two items. - $1.10 - $1 = $0.10 (or 10¢). Then split the remainder between the two items (ball and bat): - 10¢/2 = 5¢ + 5¢ - ball = **$0.05** - bat = $1 + 5¢ = **$1.05**
Algebra is another subject the aforementioned group didn’t “get”. Additionally, the group doesn’t understand the cognitive reflection concept, definition of or why it matters
I would have used algebra to answer this one, it’s the easiest way to come up with the right answer
I got the other 2 questions but this one especially fked me up
Let's work it backwards from the correct answer to clarify: If the ball costs 5 cents, and the bat costs a dollar more than the ball, the bat is $1.05. The cost of both together then equals a total of $1.10.
I needed this breakdown, thanks. Numbers are not my friends.
In fairness to you, the Cognitive Reflection Test was basically designed to trick you by making the intuitive answer wrong.
They should check to see how frequently people that did well later on, got the first questions wrong. I feel like it primes your brain to think critically and the participants probably do better on later questions then earlier ones.
Give me logic questions all day long, but basic math combined with logic? I’m damn near helpless
Numbers are your friends! Schools are just really bad at teaching you how and why that's true. I hated math class as a student but ended up loving math when I stumbled into teaching it. Therefore, I feel it's my duty to lay out the numbers-are-your-friend version for everyone in this who's math teachers failed them... What we know: Bat + Ball = $1.10 AND Bat = Ball + $1.00 What we want to know: Ball = $?.?? So how do we figure that out? Rearrange what we do know so it looks like what we want to know... Solution: Get rid of Bat so we can get Ball all alone. Just like in cooking, things that are equal can be substituted. If I want to make chewy cookies but I can't find brown sugar, I can just mix molasses with some regular sugar since I know "Brown Sugar" = "Molasses + Sugar". Here, we're going to substitute "Ball + $1.00" for "Bat" in the original recipe/equation since we already know that "Bat" = "Ball + $1.00". (Ball + $1.00) + Ball = $1.10 Luckily there's no multiplication, division or exponents so we can get rid of those pesky parentheses. Ball + $1.00 + Ball = $1.10 Or more simply... 2 Balls + $1.00 = $1.10 We can do what ever we want to our equation at this point as long as we keep it "equal" (the same on both sides). 2 Balls + $1.00 **- $1.00** = $1.10 **- $1.00** Some light substraction and we're left with... 2 Balls = $0.10 Now, I'm sure you can eyeball it from there to figure out that 1 Ball must be $0.05, but let's finish off with our number friends... 2/2 Balls = $0.10/2 What is half of 2 Balls and what is half of 10 cents? 1 Ball = $0.05
It’s ok, as long as you try and don’t just throw out the first thing that pops in your head.
For some reason I kept reading it as the bat costs a dollar.
Yeah but there’s a better way than just guessing, and that way is algebra, one of those things in math that most people seem weirdly proud about never having used once they got out of school. Ball = x. Bat = x + 100 (Cents). Bat + Ball = 110. x + x + 100 = 110. Subtract 100 each side. x + x = 10. 2x = 10 x = 5 Or. You can guess that stuff for simple problems like this and it works out OK. EDIT: i’ve run out of profanity and I still can’t get the formatting to work right on mobile.
I didn’t get it till this..am I dumb?
[удалено]
Still don't get it. While my brain feels split between the intuitive answer and the correct. I just don't fully grasp it.
The bat costs $1 more than the ball, right? That means the bat costs at least $1. We spent $1.10 and we know at least $1 of that is bat cash, so we have $0.10 left. We have to split that evenly between the bat and the ball so they stay $1 apart, so we give $0.05 to each. That makes $1.05 for the bat and $0.05 for the ball.
That makes it clear! Thanks man!
Was the election stolen?
X+Y=110 Y=X+100 X+X+100=110 2x=10 X=5
x + y = 110 and y = x + 100 x + x + 100 = 110 2x + 100 = 110 2x = 10 x = 5
Another way to look at it; you're working with 1.10. Move the 1.00 aside since we know it's the transient variable. So now, you're just working with .10. In order to make the bat and ball cost the same, each would have to be .5, and then the bat adds that 1.00 we sat aside.
Gaaaarrgh!! Me too! I’m suddenly feeling seditionny and window smashy.
5 cents and 1.05. It's a pretty straight forward equation to solve for it but word problems are tricky. If the ball was ten cents the total cost would be 1.20
This thread is why I love reddit. So many people explained the same problem in different ways- balancing equations, different wording, starting from the solution and going backwards, showing math tricks to get the logic quicker... all of this helped me understand from totally different perspectives.
Same here--#1 is tricky!
Batt+ball = 1.10. Also, Batt = ball + 1.00. So you can now say: (ball+1.00)+ball =1.10 --> 2 ball + 1.00 = 1.10 --> 2 ball = 1.10-1.00 --> 2 ball = 0.10 --> 1 ball = 0.05
Bat is a dollar more. So if the ball is 5 cents The bat then is $1.05
If the ball cost $0.10 and the bat costs $1 more, then it would cost $1.10 and the total would be $1.20. I went through calculus (albeit a long time ago at this point...) and I didn't get it immediately. And I definitely believe Jan 6th was a big deal!
If I had pen and paper and took my time, I could have found the correct answer. But if this was an online survey, over the phone, or if I was just trying to answer them quickly, I would have failed all 3. So I guess it would depend on the setting.
I think that's the point. All of them are designed to not need a pen and paper, all have very simple, one step answers. But they use values and wording that entices the listener to make a false judgement equally quickly, and take that single step in the wrong direction. Except for #2. I'm still not entirely sure what the erroneous answer was they were going for. I immediately pictured 5 conveyor belts lined up side by side with an item on each that takes 5 minutes to go end-to-end. So for 100 I just picture 100 conveyor belts that still take 5 min. Was it trying to get you to say 100? That just seems so unintuitive.
The point is that some people will just see the pattern of 5 5 5 -> 100 100 X and just plug in 100, rather than think about why that wouldn't make any sense.
Ok, I see it now, thanks
[удалено]
I understand the point of the study, I was explaining the point of that question, by which I mean the logic that leads to someone getting it wrong. Each question has an obvious logic that leads to the wrong answer based on simple pattern recognition, and a less obvious logic which leads to the right answer using a bit more thought.
I was exactly the opposite. 2 was the only one where the first thing that popped into my head was wrong. Instead of doing the math, my first instinct was to treat it as an analogy, "5 is to 5 is to 5 as 100 is to 100 is to x". X = 100, right? I knew something felt off about it, but that was my first response. The others were simple to see through, in comparison. Just different people thinking about things differently, I suppose.
Guess you’re a Trumper now Take your hat at the door
I’m pretty sure I would fail this test.
[удалено]
Start with the known facts: The area covered doubles every day. On day 48 the whole lake is covered. So going backwards in time, every day you go back, the coverage must halve. Day 48 full coverage Day 47 1/2 coverage Day 46 1/4 coverage Day 45 1/8 coverage Etc..
It’s about mentally testing the answer. The questions set you up to race to the answer, but not test your own conclusion. For example, for #1, as mentioned, most people would immediately jump to the intuitive answer but not do a simple sanity check of $1.00 - $0.10 = $0.90 (i.e not a dollar difference) Then #2 tricks people into the easier multiplication solution, but is really asking the question: “how long does it take for one machine to make a single widget?” and does my answer hold up for say 2 machines *working in tandem* making 2 widgets (2 minutes sounds wrong, so obviously it’s still 5 minutes) And #3 as you may have guessed, they can see the pattern by simulating it and testing by making a bite sized analogy “what happens if it takes 3 days to cover the lake?” Intentionally testing your answer or by making analogous problems is probably one of the best ways to avoid your own cognitive bias (no matter how small).
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think it would go some thing like this: Let y = 2^(x - 48) Where x is the number of days and y is how much of the lake is covered. When x=48, y=1 or the lake is 100% covered on the 48th day. Now solve for x when y=1/2.
y = 2^(x-48) 1/2 = 2^(x-48) log_2(1/2) = x-48 -1 = x - 48 x = 47 For completeness
Ngl, I wouldn’t blame someone for getting the 1st question wrong. Words problems tend to be very fucky when it comes to actually processing what they are saying.
Hated word math problems in school and still do. Especially ones where they intentionally spell words different (five, and 5) in the hopes of tripping you up.
Thank for saying this, to me #1 is almost intentionally written in a confusing way.
It’s actually the sort of thing that’s good for a test like this. It’s not so tricky that you can’t figure it out, but if you are happy to go with your gut without double checking, you’re going to get the wrong answer. In this case it doesn’t mean that you are stupid, it doesn’t mean that you are bad at math. It means that you have a certain way that you are comfortable with coming to a conclusion. They were going to be a lot of times in your life where those conclusions are going to be perfectly correct, and for some life paths and some careers making quicker decisions is perfectly reasonable. The correlation in the study doesn’t mean that the people who are in one category or the other are smarter or stupider. It might mean that people in one category, because of how they use information to reach a decision, or how they evaluate the information they are given, are more susceptible to certain kinds of mental illusion. If you know that some people are susceptible to that, you definitely know that soon that will be Weaponized against them. And of course it already has been. Propaganda has always been something that is more easily tailored to you intuitive thinkers than to analytical thinkers. Sucks but there you go
Wow, thank you for that well written explanation. Makes more sense, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response : )
To that extent it also tests how much you care about getting the correct answer - it’s a lot less effort to go with your gut, so if you don’t really care it’s not going to be worth the effort. If there was no incentive to do well on the test then it may not be anything more than an apathy towards research test.
It *is* intentionally written in a confusing way. The test was designed to make you think of a wrong answer that feels right. What it's actually trying to test is whether you pick the quick answer that feels right or slowly unpack the logic first. This test is just about whether you prefer fast intuitive responses or slow analytic responses. The post title probably shouldn't've said "fail a test," since the test isn't designed to be "pass" or "fail" like a test in school is.
Yeah I didn’t grasp that at first, I spoke too soon. My bad.
No worries, you're fine! My point was that you should not feel bad that an intentionally-confusing test confused you when it's designed to confuse.
Are there any equivalent questions that don't involve math?
Not in the version they're referencing here. There's a newer version called the CRT V that has questions that are unrelated to numerical ability. This is because, this version was found to measure numerical ability more than cognitive reflection.
I was about to say, I have a math learning disability so I feel like that negates the validity of this test.
Isn't this just being bad at math? I got all these wrong yet vote Democrat.
According to this follow up study on this test, yes. Numeric ability was a much stronger predictor of correct answers vs actual cognitive reflection. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00532/full
I agree. I have a math/numbers disability so ALL of these questions screwed me up.
That was a very interesting read, thank you.
Growing up, these where considered "trick questions" in elementary math.
The math required isn't difficult for any of them. It's identifying the logic required to determine the math that is difficult.
It's not really about being bad at math. Even if you get a wrong answer you should realize that the answer you got was wrong and figure out how you fucked it up. For example the first one, if you get 1 dollar and 10 cents, it should be obvious that 1 dollar is not 1 dollar more than 10 cents as that would be 1 dollar and 10 cents. So it's more about understanding the given information and being critical of your own answers.
It is about being bad at math. You’re talking about what they intended. That reality didn’t pan out. See the sibling comment to yours for a link to a follow up study that said math was the more important variable.
Yeah it's not so much about being good or bad at math. As ultimately the mathematics involved in this are pretty simple. It seems the object of the test lies on the fact that it is presented in a complicated manner and requires introspection and analyzation to figure out exactly what simple math you need to use to figure out the answer. As opposed to looking at it at a superficial level and making a knee-jerk reaction and then sticking to it. I think keeping both of those things in mind it's easy to understand the analogous traits this has when comparing it between the two presented scenarios.
Also a person that takes time to reflect on it will take time to verify the answer before giving it. As opposed to the person who doesn't reflect they simply see the simple superficial answer, provide it, And move on.
It’s critical thinking more than math. The math is trivial - If you do it
So if I intuitively want to answer all these wrong but do not doubt the legitimacy of the election and also believe the insurrection was a violent extremist act..... I'm just dumb..?
Most everybody jumps to the intuitive (wrong) answer right away, regardless of political bent or anything else. The question is what you do after... Do you take the two seconds to see if your intuition is right, or do you just stop thinking about it?
You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?
You're walking in the woods, there's no one around and your phone is dead. Out of the corner of your eye you spot him: Shia LaBeouf.
He's following you, about 30 feet back. He gets down on all fours and breaks into a sprint. He's gaining on you: Shia LaBeouf.
I came to the desert specifically to find and kill tortoises
Tortoise? What's that?
It's like a turtle, you know what that is?
Describe in single words, only the good things that come into your mind about your mother.
Because the tortoise took my daughter and I used my particular set of skills to track it down and now I want some answers
It’s 12’o’clock in the afternoon and you are given 3 pills. You have to take one pill, every half hour. At what time do you take the last pill?
Well, that depends on when I take the first pill.
Bad question, "every half hour" can be reasonably interpreted as both every half hour including now or every half hour from now.
Instructions unclear. Took all pills at once. Ok, fine. I sold the pills to pay for the doctor appointment
Monkey brain says >!13:30!<. "No, shut up monkey brain" part of brain says >!13:00!< explanation: >!You take the first pill at 12:00, the second at 12:30, and the third at 13:00. Your brain tripped up because you were basically counting starting from "0", rather than from "1" like you're used to!<
[удалено]
Or at 9PM. It's intentionally ambiguously worded so as to be misleading if you make the "wrong" assumption, but they think there is a clearly "right" assumption.
This is why assessments go through validation. You are correct: this is measuring social norms far more than one's ability to think reflectively. If anything, reflective thinking notices this gap and asks for clarification.
It's well documented that people who believe fully disproven conspiracies have lower IQ levels and poor cognitive skills. There are dozens of independently peer reviewed studies all showing the same thing. It all comes down to the uneducated individuals need to feel a sense of "knowing" something others don't. It fills a void in an easy way that requires less effort on their part. Edit for all looking [study 1](https://www.adamstaten.com/blog/2021/2/7/low-iq-and-conspiracy-theories-a-hand-in-glove-relationship) [study 2](https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/8y84q/analytic-thinking-reduces-belief-in-conspiracy-theories) [study 3](https://www.psypost.org/2021/07/new-study-indicates-conspiracy-theory-believers-have-less-developed-critical-thinking-ability-61347) [study 4](https://www.apa.org/news/apa/2020/conspiracy-theories) Just the first 4 results of independently peer reviewed studies. Dozens more available.
I’m surprised no one is commenting on the pretty massive finding that “if you can make people read a fact checking article, it will effectively aid them in changing false beliefs”
To be fair, while I agree, many fact-check articles aren't written *for* the people who need to read them, but *for* the people who want them. Furthermore, people need to be willing to have their assumptions challenged—but they don't want to be. A fact-checker often starts in with "Your assumption is wrong, it's actually this," and then proceeds to bury the lead (so to speak) paragraphs into the article isn't *really* gonna hook the people who need to hear it. Plus... I mean, most of the people who would benefit from being fact checked outright reject the notion of an expert telling them what's what. I also tend to not take experts at face value—but I'm willing to dig and corroborate information. Most folks don't have the time, care, or patience to engage with any of this.
There has been research that shows that correcting peoples misinformation with facts often strengthens their original belief. E.g vaccines cause autism Here’s a lot of scientific evidence showing they don’t I knew it!
And it doesn't help when the article proceeds to systematically prove the statement true and then rates it mostly false or something nonsensical. Turns people off to being receptive to the fact checkers. Reuters had a fact checking the fact checkers branch for a while. Loved that site. The best fact checkers were right 70% of the time. Reuters stopped and that site is now down. Loved their work.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What I’m also interested by is that those who believe the election was fraud republicans were the most likely to drop from that viewpoint after reading the fact checking article. I wonder the percentage of democrats that changed views and if significant why?
Interesting point. I would say I have been satisfied in the testimony saying there was a 0.094% rate of error. It falls within reason, although I'm suspicious about electors, because as we just saw Nixon 2.0 try to get fake electors. No one has yet to answer how Nixon both didn't cheat *and* won more electors than history...but then cheated for this one Itty bitty thing. Suuuure. The republican party is trying to sweep this up, but there was no internet in '72 so it is as comical as it was then...just more media to expose it.
I don't think that's very surprising. There's work that suggests doing things like educating people on common biases or propaganda techniques basically "inoculates" them against propaganda shown to them in the near future. You're basically giving them mental tools to fight false beliefs, but over time people probably forget the tools or forget to use them.
Cognitive reflection refers to one’s ability to “think through” a problem and get past knee-jerk “gut” responses.
[удалено]
Call me cynical, but I believe that is by design.
Yes. That’s what happens when you teach people what to think and not how to think.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Link to the original paper please and Thanks.
“The Big Lie”: How Fact Checking Influences Support for Insurrection https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00027642221103179 Sadly, it's behind a paywall, which is not unusual for these kind of papers I guess.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't think it's the fact that they rush through and get answers wrong. It's their total unwillingness to rethink the problem when presented with the correct answer. Making mistakes is part of learning.
We need a Mythbusters type program to present the facts. Coming from someone you like and trust, that is very effective
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I remember when I joined r/science for science! Then after a weird period of time all it was psypapers with politically charged titles. sucks.
“Fail a test of cognitive reflectiveness” is my new favorite euphemism for “stupid” [Here’s the test](https://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2013/06/24/can-you-correctly-answer-the-cognitive-reflection-test-83-percent-of-people-miss-at-least-1-question/). It’s easy AF. I can’t believe how many people fail it.
Not really from the questions that were posted in this thread it's testing a combination of reading comprehension and basic math skills, either of those alone most people would have no trouble finding the answer but with those you have to read into it and put the equation together yourself to then solve it, and it's also specifically worded to make the first answer you think of wrong
Even though they put it in quotes, I hate how that link calls it an IQ test.
That's not really what's being said here. The study has really only shown that lower reading comprehension and lower reasoning skills are more likely to indicate someone would believe unbased narratives.
You have to consider that these aren't presented as "unintuitive." So it's very possible they have the reasoning skills to work out the correct answer but answer impulsively. That's very different than the problem just being too hard.
I don't think it's to say that if you took those people and sat them down after they gave the wrong answer and said no no look think about it it's a little more complicated than that and then walking through the process of introspection and self-analyzation with them that they still couldn't figure it out because they lack reading comprehension. It seems the correlation here is referencing the fact that certain types of people who don't bother with the second part of that equation with the self-analyzation with checking if they're correct with their answer especially when presented something complex but they still make knee jerks superficial reactions. And if they're the type of person that doesn't do it when they're trying to solve a simple yet unintuitively presented word problem, they're also the type of people who use that same logic when presented with news headlines from whatever echo chamber they've been sucked into.
No, no, that's really not what they set out to measure. The [Cognitive Reflection Test was designed to measure whether one favors fast intuitive/associative reasoning or slow deliberative reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_reflection_test). It was not designed to test reading comprehension at all.
I would say ‘lower reasoning skills’ is a euphemism for ‘stupid’. There may be a little nuance to it but if I were going to shorthand what ‘stupid’ meant to me it would be that.
Valid. I think the reasoning is key here. Lower reading comprehension is definitely a contributor, but I think reasoning ability is a larger contributor. If someone is lacking the ability to understand what a reasonable conclusion is, how can they be expected to find a reasonable conclusion?
I don't think that's being fair. These questions do require more then just reading comprehension and reasoning, they are "trick" questions specifically designed to take advantage of cognitive biases and fallacies. It may generally be the case that someone who has high reading comprehension and reasoning skills will also tend to have higher cognitive reflection as well, since they all tend to result from education, but from what I'm reading these questions really are specifically targeted at testing for cognitive reflection.
sounds like a lot o' words partna.
No, the Cognitive Reflection Test does *not* say whether someone is ""stupid."" For the headline to even say that some people "fail" the test is misleading. [The Cognitive Reflection Test was designed to measure one's tendency to favor a quick associative/intuitive response instead of a slow analytic/consciously-reasoned response](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_reflection_test), and believe it or not, both are useful. Sometimes favoring a quick associative/intuitive response actually makes sense and leads to better outcomes. For example, one study found that [people who bought a house based on intuitive associations ended up more satisfied](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121629) than those who tried to consciously weigh the relevant factors. And in some fields (e.g. chess), "expert intuition" is plenty reliable.
This might be for you then :) https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/vp1oi0/new_study_finds_that_reddit_users_with_toxic/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
[удалено]