Many of our decisions and decision-making processes in life are predicated on shortages. We don't have enough time for serious analysis, we don't have enough information, we don't have enough short term memory, etc.
To make up for this lack of time, resources, processing capacity, etc., we have devised all sorts of work-arounds - heuristics, adages, habits, in-filling (providing what seems to be missing, i.e. understanding that a misspelling such as hpe probably means hope), prejudices, and biases. This article highlights a particular example of such cognitive shortcuts which are otherwise so beneficial when making decisions in an environment of constraints.
From the original article.
After a plane crash, where should the survivors be buried?
If you are considering where the most appropriate burial place should be, you are not alone. Scientists have found that around half the people asked this question, answer it as if they were being asked about the victims not the survivors.
Similarly, when asked "Can a man marry his widow's sister?" most people answer "yes" - effectively answering that it would indeed be possible for a dead man to marry his bereaved wife’s sister.
It is too much work to scan carefully for errors in all the sentences we read and hear all day. Our sentence interpretation circuitry probably does some sort of compare of the sentence against competing meanings and uses some words to influence the meaning assigned to other words. Our minds arrive at interpretations that make definitions assigned to individual words fit into the context of the words around them. So the widow's sister becomes interpreted into something like the dead wife's sister since widow and widower involve someone dying and the man is assumed to be still alive since a question about his intentions is being asked.
EEG scans provide evidence that suggests our brains aren't even slightly noticing errors in sentences.
What makes researchers particularly interested in people’s failure to notice words that actually don’t make sense, so called semantic illusions, is that these illusions challenge traditional models of language processing which assume that we build understanding of a sentence by deeply analysing the meaning of each word in turn.
Instead semantic illusions provide a strong line of evidence that the way we process language is often shallow and incomplete.
Professor Leuthold at University of Glasgow led a study using electroencephalography (EEG) to explore what is happening in our brains when we process sentences containing semantic illusions.
By analysing the patterns of brain activity when volunteers read or listened to sentences containing hard-to-detect semantic anomalies - words that fit the general context even though they do not actually make sense - the researchers found that when a volunteer was tricked by the semantic illusion, their brain had not even noticed the anomalous word.
No comments:
Post a Comment