Telling more than we can know - Essay Example

Telling more than we can know The article begins by claiming that people have no knowledge of their own inner thought processes. However, it points out that this is not an opinion that is backed by scientific research and seems to apply strictly to memory and perception. It also points out that people are often capable of providing reasons why they came to various conclusions regarding higher thought processes. Finally, since people are sometimes correct regarding the reasons why they think a certain way about things, it is necessary to examine the cognitive mind and an individual’s access to it in greater detail. To do this, the article sets out to examine three important elements of thought: people are usually wrong regarding their own thought processes as they are affected by a particular stimuli, they frequently misunderstand the stimuli when it is recognized and correct interpretation of higher order thinking processes are typically a result of correctly interpreting a priori theories rather than cognitive introspection. The literature review of the study points out that people generally tend to revise the reasons they may have made an assessment based upon what they feel is correct or acceptable after the thoughts have been produced rather than before. In other words, they change their justifications for a particular thought or action as a means of making it more acceptable or less painful. These studies revealed that many people do not, in fact, recognize a change in their responses to a stimulus based upon external factors such as the researcher’s instructions or sound. Other studies are shown to indicate that many people are not even aware of attitude changes depending upon how they are achieved and, even when provided an explanation for their behavior, such as a placebo pill intended to make them fall asleep faster for instance, the subjects of experiments typically behaved as predicted but failed to attribute the appropriate stimulant as the reason. Further evidence that people are usually not aware of the various stimuli that affect their choices is found in the research regarding subliminal influence and the creative mind. According to the researchers in this report, it is evident that subliminal messages do speak to the individual in a unique way depending upon the present activity, thought processes and other filters currently employed when the subliminal stimuli is presented. Since they are, by definition, not aware of the influence, they are unable to identify it as playing a role in their perceptions and the knowledge of this influence does not pass into short or long-term memory. The same is said of the creative mind, in which many great artists of various types report themselves as a mere by-stander in the creative process, sometimes not even aware that a problem has been presented until the solution is created before them by their own hands. Following the literature review, though, the researchers then examine the various ways in which the manipulated scenarios involved in the experiments reported may have led to the expected results without providing any true illumination regarding the thought process. To attempt to overcome this bias, the researchers designed a set of experiments in which the external stimuli were deliberately attempted to be undetectable yet unstaged; however they proved to be as unsuccessful as the individual subjects in predicting the outcomes. These experiments were geared around the same concerns as previously reported experiments such as erroneous reports about stimuli influencing associative behavior, erroneous reports about position effects on appraisal and choice, erroneous reports about anchoring effects on predictions and erroneous reports about the influence of an individual’s personality on reactions to his physical characteristics. Experiments also often investigated emotional impacts of literary passages and interruptions during films as means of communication. The study finally concluded that people are not able to think introspectively about why they behave the way they do. While they may be able to conceive of various reasons and motivations behind their thoughts and processes, there remains a great deal of information that contributes to these end behaviors that have little or nothing to do with the justifications we arrive at following the action or thought. The brain of the human being is capable of discerning and recording numerous elements in a given situation, many of which pass below our notice, as the various studies conducted and reported on in this study have shown. However, we remain unaware of our ignorance and the present study suggests numerous reasons why this might be so. These include confusion between content and process, inadequate feedback and motivational factors that insist we must know what we’re thinking in our own brains. Outline Introduction The authors of the current study reveal that we really don’t know much about what we think, but they propose several reasons why we continue to cling to the concept that we can know the reasons why we come up with the ideas we have. Literature review Are we able to determine what motivates us to form the thoughts and perceptions accurately? The Creative Mind What artists and other forms of influence have to say about how we think about how we think Experiments What do the present experiments say about how we interpret our thought formation. Conclusion Telling more than we can know In the article “Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes” by Richard Nisbett and Timothy Wilson, the authors examine what is known about thought and perception. The authors begin by claiming that people have no knowledge of their own inner thought processes, particularly as this concept applies to memory and perception. They point out that people are capable of providing reasons why they came to various conclusions after the process is completed. In the end, the authors of the current study reveal that we don’t know much about what we think, but they propose several reasons why we continue to cling to the concept that we can know the reasons why we come up with the ideas we have. Through the literature review, it is shown that people generally tend to revise the reasons for particular assessments or perceptions based upon what’s acceptable after the thoughts have been produced rather than before. In other words, they change their justifications for a particular thought or action as a means of making it less painful. The studies included in the literature review revealed that many people do not recognize a change in their responses to a stimulus. Further evidence that people are usually not aware of the various stimuli that affect their choices is found in the research regarding subliminal influence and the creative mind. According to this report, it is evident that subliminal messages do speak to the individual in a unique way depending upon the present activity, thought processes and other filters employed when the subliminal stimuli is presented. The same is said of the creative mind, as many great artists describe themselves as by-standers in the creative process, not aware that a problem has been presented until the solution is confronted. The researchers also examined the various ways in which the manipulated scenarios involved in the experiments reported may have led to the expected results. Their experiments were geared around the same concerns as previously reported experiments such as erroneous reports about stimuli influencing associative behavior, erroneous reports about position effects on appraisal and choice, erroneous reports about anchoring effects on predictions and erroneous reports about the influence of an individual’s personality on reactions to his physical characteristics. Experiments also often investigated emotional impacts of literary passages and interruptions during films as means of communication. The study finally concluded that people are not able to think introspectively about why they behave the way they do. While they may be able to conceive of various reasons and motivations behind their thoughts and processes, there remains a great deal of information that contributes to these end behaviors that have little or nothing to do with the justifications we arrive at following the action or thought. The present study suggests numerous reasons why we cling to the idea that we know what we think. These include confusion between content and process, inadequate feedback and motivational factors that insist we must know what we’re thinking in our own brains. Works Cited Nisbett, Richard E. & Wilson, Timothy DeCamp. “Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes.” Psychological Review. Vol. 84, N. 3, May 1977. Read More