Here’s a simple arithmetic question: A bat and ball cost a dollar and ten cents. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?"Disturbing", is it? Not to me, Eustace.The vast majority of people respond quickly and confidently, insisting the ball costs ten cents. This answer is both obvious and wrong. (The correct answer is five cents for the ball and a dollar and five cents for the bat.)
...A new study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology led by Richard West at James Madison University and Keith Stanovich at the University of Toronto suggests that, in many instances, smarter people are more vulnerable to these thinking errors. Although we assume that intelligence is a buffer against bias—that’s why those with higher S.A.T. scores think they are less prone to these universal thinking mistakes—it can actually be a subtle curse.
... West and colleagues weren’t simply interested in reconfirming the known biases of the human mind. Rather, they wanted to understand how these biases correlated with human intelligence. As a result, they interspersed their tests of bias with various cognitive measurements, including the S.A.T. and the Need for Cognition Scale, which measures “the tendency for an individual to engage in and enjoy thinking.”
The results were quite disturbing.... intelligence seems to make things worse. The scientists gave the students four measures of “cognitive sophistication.” As they report in the paper, all four of the measures showed positive correlations, “indicating that more cognitively sophisticated participants showed larger bias blind spots.” This trend held for many of the specific biases, indicating that smarter people (at least as measured by S.A.T. scores) and those more likely to engage in deliberation were slightly more vulnerable to common mental mistakes.
(I note with pleasure, of course, the breezy and apparently unquestioned assumption that people with higher SAT scores are smarter.)
Comments (29)
I always thought it was people who scored higher on their CAT scans were considered the most intelligent.
Posted by Paul Alexander | June 14, 2012 4:06 PM
Posted on June 14, 2012 16:06
I'd say it's the arrogance associated with being assigned one who is intelligent that is actually the cause of the stupidity.
That said, a friend of mine who can repair cars, do top notch carpentry and cabinet work and also creates fine jewelry is way smarter than I am. But I can crunch numbers so a lot of people think I'm the smart guy. If they only knew...
Posted by Drunk Pundit | June 14, 2012 4:26 PM
Posted on June 14, 2012 16:26
I always thought it was social psychologists who considered themselves the most intelligent.
Posted by Free Willy | June 14, 2012 4:30 PM
Posted on June 14, 2012 16:30
It took me more than 5 minutes to figure out why the wrong answer was 10 cents, so I must be a goddmaned genius.
Posted by chomskyzinn | June 14, 2012 4:32 PM
Posted on June 14, 2012 16:32
You can figure this out by reading "Liberal" blogs. They think they are the greatest thing that ever happened to politics. Just ask one. Especially the Obama supporters.
Posted by par4 | June 14, 2012 4:48 PM
Posted on June 14, 2012 16:48
Here is one at Gizmodo on the same subject. h/t The jVerse
Posted by par4 | June 14, 2012 5:13 PM
Posted on June 14, 2012 17:13
Broken link, par4.
Posted by MJS | June 14, 2012 6:03 PM
Posted on June 14, 2012 18:03
my thoughts are on how the assuming too much comes in on the wording of the question for those that are .. too confident .. . / .. the first thing that would come out of my mouth on being asked that question .. would be something of not liking the wording .. , my disobedience would lead to my always doing well on the cat scans of paul's suggest ..
Posted by anne shew | June 14, 2012 6:04 PM
Posted on June 14, 2012 18:04
Every time I do a cat scan, there seem to be more cats.
Posted by MJS | June 14, 2012 6:32 PM
Posted on June 14, 2012 18:32
I attribute it to the understandable popularity of the Sapphic option.
Posted by mjs | June 14, 2012 6:33 PM
Posted on June 14, 2012 18:33
could someone help me out on what (, in knowing him in ways that i do not, ) michael might be meaning,suggesting on his sapphic/sappho mention .. of .. cats , my mind is going all over the place as it does .. on that one , i have him in a dress reading poetry now , and of something of where my.. the most feminine girl on the planet.. but very open to ..has taken me in living ..
Posted by anne shew | June 14, 2012 8:07 PM
Posted on June 14, 2012 20:07
In my experience -- far from comprehensive -- female couples tend to have cats in the house, in somewhat greater than average numbers.
Posted by MJS | June 14, 2012 9:59 PM
Posted on June 14, 2012 21:59
they have dogs around here , now i'm wondering what the difference is between where you live and here , i'm in a very dense urban area,most of the couples that i am thinking of are in the visual arts like myself , i'm assuming that i'm a little younger than yourself and the mystery of owen , / so you don't ever find yourself just sitting around the house in a dress reading poetry , damn,i was enjoying that thought ..
Posted by anne shew | June 14, 2012 10:31 PM
Posted on June 14, 2012 22:31
Another set of disturbing results.
Posted by sk | June 15, 2012 12:38 AM
Posted on June 15, 2012 00:38
Regarding the photo, I hadn't realized that Marc Andreesen was actually wearing a mask, and that's how he came to be considered a GOD on Earth, along with the rest of his, so very narrowly defined, ilk. That certainly explains a lot, too late now though.
Regarding the algebra:
where x = the (cheaper) cost of the ball:
x+x+1.00=1.10 or 2x+1.00=1.10
2x+1.10-1.00=1.10-1.00 or 2x+.10=.10
2x/2=.10/2 or x=.05
Regarding cats and dogs, isn’t it fascinating?
She’s so catty=a bitch
He’s a cool cat=admirable and hip
She’s a dog=unbelievably ‘ugly’
He’s a dog = sexually irresistable, yet a heartbreaker of women
Posted by diane | June 15, 2012 12:55 AM
Posted on June 15, 2012 00:55
Free Willy; MJS: lol.
Have the researchers studied the correlation between intelligence and a belief that standardized tests, on a large scale, portray intelligence accurately?
Even those who now attack standardized tests, such as those resisting Bill Gates' assault on American children, fall into the trap of using statistics to do so. Yes, the statistics can demonstrate that the tests are flawed and actually result in reduced educational quality, but statistics can be easily massaged, by social psychologists, Ed.D's, and others. Managing information in a computer-like fashion is good, and inorganic thinking computers will someday be good, but even ten-thousand-variable testing results are so painfully limited.
Types of Intelligence.
Posted by High Arka | June 15, 2012 1:55 AM
Posted on June 15, 2012 01:55
Yes, I’ve never taught algebra, isn’t everyone relieved!
Sorry for the muddle.
where x = the (cheaper) cost of the ball:
x+x+1.00=1.10 or 2x+1.00=1.10
2x+1.00-1.00=1.10-1.00 or 2x=.10
2x/2=.10/2 or x=.05
Posted by diane | June 15, 2012 2:41 AM
Posted on June 15, 2012 02:41
still wondering why this michael sees those that couple in that way as cat gatherers .. ,as sh e goes from io z .. like hildegard humming .. . out
Posted by anne shew | June 15, 2012 12:00 PM
Posted on June 15, 2012 12:00
(I note with pleasure, of course, the breezy and apparently unquestioned assumption that people with higher SAT scores are smarter.)
Well, no. The article actually qualifies this pretty specifically in your own excerpt, quoting the researchers themselves:
As a result, they interspersed their tests of bias with various cognitive measurements, including the S.A.T. and the Need for Cognition Scale, which measures “the tendency for an individual to engage in and enjoy thinking.”
"Various cognitive measurements". This is actually how science writing is supposed to be done, MJS. Those who want to read the paper itself will get the full-on methodology including all caveats and qualifications; those who want a summary read the write-up in the New Yorker.
As for the substance of the finding, I'm with Drunk Pundit above:
I'd say it's the arrogance associated with being assigned one who is intelligent that is actually the cause of the stupidity.
Posted by Picador | June 15, 2012 12:07 PM
Posted on June 15, 2012 12:07
Cat scans are for pussies.
Posted by Sean | June 15, 2012 12:12 PM
Posted on June 15, 2012 12:12
It's easier to have
x+y=1.10, with x being the bat and y the ball
x-y=1.00
so adding
2x=2.10
x=1.05
and
y=.05
Glad I didn't go to one of those Ivy League colleges! I got my teaching job in lieu of death in Vietnam, so the dean who hired me knew he had me by the throat. He insisted I teach statistics, something I was eminently unqualified to do. I said, of course, I could teach it. I hope I didn't mess any student up too much that year. Later we hired a man who could teach statistics, and, bless his heart, he tutored me for an entire year in the fine points of the subject. Too late for the students I taught but good for me.
Posted by michael yates | June 15, 2012 12:26 PM
Posted on June 15, 2012 12:26
I found the New Yorker's explanation of their method quite confusing -- not sure the writer understood it himself -- and couldn't find the paper online. The SATs were referred to several times, but the whole thing seemed a bit incoherent to me. What were the 'various cognitive measurements', apart from this 'need for cognition' scale, which doesn't even, as far as I can tell, present itself as a measurement of intelligence?
Posted by MJS | June 15, 2012 1:56 PM
Posted on June 15, 2012 13:56
Perhaps this better measures belief about one's own intelligence (which standardized tests encourage and reinforce) and the misplaced confidence in one's own bias which follows, more than a correlation between actual intellect and bias.
Posted by Jack Crow | June 15, 2012 2:53 PM
Posted on June 15, 2012 14:53
I cannot resist. We were solving for the cost of the ball, after all:
A bat (x) and ball (y) cost a dollar and ten cents.
x + y = 1.10
x = 1.10 - y
The bat costs a dollar more than the ball.
x = y + 1 and x = 1.10 - y
so
1.10 - y = y + 1
or
2y = 1.10 - 1
or
2y = .10
or
y = .05
The ball costs 5 cents.
The "too smart to turn a goddamn doorknob" category is very real.
My IQ test results from an early age consistently put me easily in the genius range. This led to a superiority delusion which took some years to overcome. Seriously. I'm glad that I now know that I am just one of many dumbshits; only then does one have the hope of ever being intelligent.
Posted by davidly | June 15, 2012 6:11 PM
Posted on June 15, 2012 18:11
I was always really terrible at algebra, but surely this is just X + (X + 1.00) = 1.10?
2X + 1.00 = 1.10
2X = 0.10
X = 0.05
Posted by MJS | June 15, 2012 7:58 PM
Posted on June 15, 2012 19:58
love all the algebra... keep it coming... it can only get better when
OP starts typing!
Posted by Boink | June 15, 2012 8:23 PM
Posted on June 15, 2012 20:23
Oh my (though this is the most fun I’ve had in a while: yes I am morbidly afraid and depressed about our collective future) If I just hadn’t drank those 24 ouncers!
I was going slowly through it MJS, as all don’t have the same leanings (which seems to me the reason why humans can survive better in a group). ..If I hadn’t made that typo (and then hilariously, while buzzed (WUZ NOT BEHIND “THE WHEEL” (You “Humanity Fuckers!” (lets ask the brits if i can do that with the exclamation point and the end quote))), started calculating on my own typo), mine diagram would have just included more explanatory steps.
It’s kind of odd to me, I loved algebra, but I’m as emotional as the day ..and night, are long ...feeling so out of sorts and among MONSTERS. (None of the above persons commenting... even crossed my mind ... as I wrote the word: MONSTERS.)
Posted by diane | June 15, 2012 11:39 PM
Posted on June 15, 2012 23:39
and yeah, cat and dog analogies .... are very difficult to write about, since they are so very subterranean and ingrained.
Posted by diane | June 16, 2012 12:06 AM
Posted on June 16, 2012 00:06
Nicely done, MJS. Best on yet. Perhaps you were just fine at algebra, but had less patience for showing your work.
Posted by davidly | June 16, 2012 9:50 PM
Posted on June 16, 2012 21:50