[tokenadult]

Stanovich cites many studies in his book. He would like to produce "RQ" tests to be used alongside IQ tests, but so far no test publisher that I am aware of has taken him up on his suggestion. So except for the (sometimes small-n) studies on specific cognitive abilities that Stanovich cites, there has yet to be validation of "rationality" for occupational counseling or the like. What has been shown, very well indeed, is persistent cognitive illusions that result in irrational decisions, even among persons presumptively selected by high IQ score, such as financial professionals. Behavioral economists have of course been very interested in these issues, and Stanovich cites their primary research papers extensively in his book. Some of those experiments have been replicated by dozens of investigators over thousands of subjects.

[corruption]

What were the conclusions of these studies? It's not my area so would appreciate any insight you can give.

[tokenadult]

Thanks for asking the follow-up question. I'll quote here from a review of the book I wrote for friends on an email list about education of gifted children, and sum up an answer to your question in my last paragraph:

"For many kinds of errors in cognition, as Stanovich points out with multiple citations to peer-reviewed published research, the performance of high-IQ individuals is no better at all than the performance of low-IQ individuals. The default behavior of being a cognitive miser applies to everyone, as it is strongly selected for by evolution. In some cases, an experimenter can prompt a test subject on effective strategies to minimize cognitive errors, and in some of those cases prompted high-IQ individuals perform better than control groups. Stanovich concludes with dismay in a sentence he writes in bold print: 'Intelligent people perform better only when you tell them what to do!'

"Stanovich gives you the reader the chance to put your own cognition to the test. Many famous cognitive tests that have been presented to thousands of subjects in dozens of studies are included in the book. Read along, and try those cognitive tests on yourself. Stanovich comments that if the many cognitive tasks found in cognitive research were included in the item content of IQ tests, we would change the rank-ordering of many test-takers, and some persons now called intelligent would be called average, while some other people who are now called average would be called highly intelligent.

"Stanovich then goes on to discuss the term 'mindware' coined by David Perkins and illustrates two kinds of 'mindware' problems. Some--most--people have little knowledge of correct reasoning processes, which Stanovich calls having 'mindware gaps,' and thus make many errors of reasoning. And most people have quite a lot of 'contaminated mindware,' ideas and beliefs that lead to repeated irrational behavior. High IQ does nothing to protect thinkers from contaminated mindware. Indeed, some forms of contaminated mindware appeal to high-IQ individuals by the complicated structure of the false belief system. He includes information about a survey of a high-IQ society that find widespread belief in false concepts from pseudoscience among the society members."

So Stanovich, based on the studies he cites in his book, concludes that the cognitive strategy of being a cognitive miser (using the minimal amount of information and thinking possible, even if it is too little) is such an inherent part of the human condition that external incentives and societal processes of decision-making are necessary to overcome that weakness. He has a fair amount of optimism about filling mindware gaps through educational processes that would train more thinkers in correct reasoning (as, for example, the kind of statistical training that I recall was part of your higher education). He suggests that actively counteracting contaminated mindware (which is something I have a penchant for doing here on HN) is considerably more difficult, because it is precisely high-IQ individuals who are best able to defend their irrational beliefs.

[radu_floricica]

Do you by any chance know of any good resources about training one's RQ? I've read Stanovich, and the first choice in the bibliography seemed to be Jonathan Baron's Thinking and Deciding - which proved to be both very informative and dry as ash. Anything more practical?

[tokenadult]

I like Gerd Gigerenzer's book Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You

http://www.amazon.com/Calculated-Risks-Know-Numbers-Deceive/...

for readable training in rational thinking. Interestingly, Gigerenzer's more recent books have focused more on strategies for using standard human thought processes, which may not be strictly rational, to reach correct decisions. I haven't read those books yet as closely as I have read Calculated Risks.

[radu_floricica]

I've gone through most of "Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart" - interesting stuff. Had no idea about the earlier books, thanks.