More from Keith Stanovich's Rationality & the Reflective Mind follows.
"One interesting implication that follows from the distinction between the algorithmic mind and the reflective mind is that measures of so-called "executive functioning" in the neuropsychological literature actually measure nothing of the sort. The term executive implies that these tasks assess the most strategic (often deemed the "highest") level of cognitive functioning--the reflective level. However, a consideration of the tasks most commonly used in the neuropsychological literature to assess executive functioning . . . reveals that almost without exception they are optimal performance tasks and that most of them rather severely constrain reflective level functioning" (p. 56).
Other than a couple of examples he gives, I am unfamiliar with the neuropsychological literature he refers to. So I trust that he says.
As said in my previous post, Stanovich says that IQ tests rely mainly on the algorithmic mind whereas critical thinking tests rely mainly on the reflective mind. Reflecting on my own life, my taking tests in college and actuarial exams seemed to rely mainly on my algorithmic mind, whereas my later work often called for my reflective mind. Of course, it took a lot of study and often reflection to make the the test/exam material algorithmic. The work often included goals, and/or how to achieve them, that were not well-defined, more so with time. It called for ranking the importance of multiple goals and choosing the best, or at least sufficient, way to achieve them. Doing the work therefore called upon the reflective mind. Similarly, executive level functioning in business -- but not merely there -- often calls upon the reflective mind. Moreover, the higher the executive level, the more that is the case, generally speaking. It isn't always the case, since biases can creeps in, e.g. favoritism in promotions. More responsibility and personal autonomy generally increases with promotions.
No comments:
Post a Comment