Read Psychology for Dummies Online
Authors: Adam Cash
Tags: #Psychology, #General, #Body; Mind & Spirit, #Spirituality
Psychology for Dummies (18 page)
Forget about it!Have you ever been told to forget about something? Try this: Forget about cheese. Did it work? Did you forget about cheese or did you actually think about cheese? The irony of someone telling you to forget something is while you are thinking about something it is impossible to forget about it. Forget about it is pretty bogus advice. If they really wanted you to forget about it, they shouldn’t mention it to you at all.
The third step in the thinking process involves the implementation of mental operations or activities. Two common types of mental activities are
problem solving
and
reasoning.
Problem solving sounds pretty straightforward. You have a problem, and you solve it. Remember that television show
MacGyver?
MacGyver could solve just about any problem that came his way. He could turn a toothpick into a Jet Ski or a rocket launcher. I’d just sit back and watch in amazement, and then I’d get out my trusty toolbox and dismantle the toaster, trying to turn it into a satellite receiver — four hours later all I’d have was a pile of parts and no way to make toast. I guess MacGyver had better problem-solving skills than me.
Newell and Simon (1972) are like the godfathers of problem-solving psychology. Nearly every research study on the topic cites their study. They gave us these basic steps of the problem-solving process:
1. Recognizing a problem exists is kind of like the idea that you can’t deal with an addiction or alcohol problem until you admit that one exists
2. Constructing a representation of the problem that includes the initial state and the eventual goal
3. Generating and evaluating the possible solutions
4. Selecting a possible solution
5. Executing the solution and determining if it actually worked
These steps are sometimes identified by the acronym IDEAL (Bransford and Stein, 1993):
“I” identify the problem
“D” define and represent the problem
“E” explore possible strategies
“A” action
“L” look back and evaluate the effects
As many problem-solving strategies probably are out there as there are problems, although most of us basically use the same ones over and over again. We all know how to use
trial and error
to solve a problem. I’ve seen young children use trial and error when trying to put shapes into their respective holes. First he’ll pick up the circle and try it in every cut-out hole until it fits and so on. This strategy is pretty inefficient, but sometimes it’s the only tool we have. Trial and error can be used if no clear definition of the problem exists and when part of the problem is figuring out what the problem is.
Here are a couple more common problem-solving techniques:
Means-ends analysis:
This strategy involves breaking the problem down into smaller sub-problems to solve to get to the end result.
Working backwards:
This way to solve a problem is like taking something apart and putting it back together again in order to figure out how the object (or problem) is built.
Brainstorming:
A technique that involves coming up with as many possible solutions to the problem without editing them in any way. It doesn’t matter how implausible, unfeasible, idiotic, or ridiculous the solutions are; you just put them all out there and eliminate them after you can’t think of any more possible solutions. Even my idea to have Superman use his super-cool breath to stop global warming is included in this technique.
Analogies and metaphors:
These strategies involve using a parallel or similar problem that has already been solved to solve a previously unrelated problem. The Cuban Missile Crisis was like a nuclear-powered game of chicken, and whoever flinched, blinked, or chickened out first was the loser. I guess President Kennedy was pretty good at chicken.
Supposedly, reasoning and the ability to solve problems logically are two of the primary abilities that set humans apart from animals. In case you’re wondering, humans can reason, animals can’t. I know that this fact may be up for debate, especially for all of you pet owners out there who think that your dog Fido can solve math problems by barking the answers, but trust me. Remember Dr. Spock on
Star Trek?
He was always so logical, and Captain Kirk was always winning the day with his passionate and emotionally based solutions. So much for logic and reasoning. But remember that
Star Trek
was only a television show.
Reasoning
can be defined as a thinking process that involves drawing
conclusions based
on the truth of the premises that precede the conclusion. Premises state some state of affairs, like “All fire trucks are red.” Another premise might be, “My dad drives a fire truck at work.” So a logical conclusion might be, “My dad drives a red truck at work.” Reasoning can help us figure out if our conclusions are valid or if they make logical sense.
When our arguments make logical sense, our reasoning is good. It makes logical sense that my dad drives a fire truck at work because this follows from the premises. But what if it went like this: All fire trucks are red. My dad’s truck is red. Therefore, my dad’s truck is a fire truck. This is not logical! The first premise doesn’t state that all trucks are red, only that fire trucks are red. So, other trucks can be red, including fire trucks. My dad might drive a red Toyota. Logic is like a measuring stick for verifying our reasoning.
All basic reasoning problems involve two basic components:
Premises:
These are statements about some object or event that are used to support a conclusion.
Conclusions:
These are the points derived from the premises. They are only valid if they can be logically or reasonably drawn from the premises.
There are two basic types of reasoning:
Inductive:
In inductive reasoning, you begin with making observations (the premises) in order to collect facts to support or disconfirm (validate) some hypothetically stated outcome or situation (the conclusion). Consider the following:
Monday it rained.
Tuesday it rained.
Therefore, I conclude that Wednesday it is going to rain.
This is an example of inductive reasoning. Two observations or premises are used to predict a third outcome. I think my local weather person uses inductive logic to make his forecasts, not the million-dollar computer technology that the TV station advertises.
Deductive:
Deductive reasoning uses premises that claim to provide conclusive proof of truth for the conclusion. A conclusion based on deductive logic is by necessity true provided that it begins with true premises. Deduction often begins with generalizations and reasons to particulars. Consider the following example of deductive reasoning:
All men should be free.
I am a man.
Therefore, I should be free.
The conclusion follows logically from the two premises. It has to be that way based on what is stated in the premises. Here’s an example of a false conclusion:
All chickens lay eggs.
My bird laid an egg.
Therefore, my bird must be a chicken.
Why is this false? Because the first premise refers to a subset of the larger category, birds. The second premise includes this larger category, and therefore refers to some events not covered by the first premise. If we turn the two premises around, we can create a logically valid syllogism:
All birds lay eggs,
My chicken laid an egg,
Therefore, my chicken must be a bird.