By CoperNick

Cécilia Guerra de Araujo
France and Brazil

 

June 24, 2020

---

 

Have you ever heard of executive functions, those functions which prevent us from insulting someone who is lining us up in a queue, which help us remember a phone number while we take five minutes to find a piece of paper to write it down on, which provide us the ability to switch from a task to another, and more generally, which allow us to plan, strategize and organize? If so, you may know that the frontal lobe, which is located at the front of our brain as its name suggests, is also the core of our executive functions. More precisely, the frontotemporal network could be specifically involved in the ability to reason on semantic content involving our own beliefs.

 

This remark leads us to introduce the Kahneman dual process theory [10], which is a model of decision making. Daniel Kahneman is a Nobel laureate psychologist who focused on decision making and the conclusions that our minds jump to. Dual-process theory provides an architecture for the interaction between intuitive (type 1) and deliberate (type 2) thinking [9], exposing the two different ways our mind functions: a conscious, effortful way of thinking and an unconscious, effortless way of thinking. Both systems involve the frontotemporal network and the ability to reason based on beliefs. System 1 functions without our being aware, which means it works fast, automatically and implicitly, while System 2 is the one that “pays attention” and requires the use of cognitive resources and deliberate “thinking”, which means it works slowly and consciously.

 

In terms of moral dilemmas, for example, the intuitive system corresponds to a preference for deontological morality while the analytical system corresponds rather to a preference for utilitarian morality. Indeed, in impersonal dilemmas, such as the trolley dilemma (taking a decision that will benefit a group of people, but, in doing so will harm a single person), the social-emotional processes are less involved (“I operate a joystick, I am indirectly involved”), which explains the activation of the analytical system: “I will tend to prefer to save a group of several people rather than a single person, in order to save more lives “. Therefore, in this situation I used a utilitarian morality.

 

Graphic representation of the trolley dilemma

 

On the other hand, personal dilemmas such as the bridge dilemma (pushing a stranger from the top of a bridge overhanging rails to save a group of people from the arrival of a train) mobilise more socioemotional processes (“I push the person myself from the bridge”) which explains the activation of the intuitive system: “I will tend not to cause serious injuries to a specific person, even if it means not saving an entire group people, because this gesture does not imply external resources but only my initiative.” Here, I therefore used an ethical code.

Graphic representation of the bridge dilemma

 

This brings us to the heart of our subject: what strategy of syllogistic reasoning does our brain use when there is a conflict between a belief and our logic?

To answer this question, it is first essential to remember the following thing : when we reason on familiar situation, we automatically activate specific heuristics (System 1) to these situations based on our experiences and our previous knowledge (frontotemporal network). When these heuristics are not available, we rely on our universal formal reasoning system (System 2) which, in the case of syllogistic reasoning, could be based on the occipitotemporal network (Goel, 2003 [4]). The reason we make mistakes in decision making is because we naturally rely on System 1 and the heuristics (short cuts) it is based on.

Now, our beliefs and our opinions regarding the conclusion of a syllogism modulate our ability to judge its logical validity (Wilkins, 1928). To be able to fully understand what it is about, here is an example of a syllogism: “All men are mortal, Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal “. Considering logical validity, this sentence is perfect, and in light of our belief, this sentence is true.

Now, if we take the following sentence: “No reptile has hair, and some elephants have hair; therefore no elephant is a reptile”, we agree that its content is true in terms of belief (I do not believe that elephants are reptiles) but not in terms of logic (it is not because some elephants have hair that no elephant is a reptile – some indeed have no hair). Similarly, if we take the sentence: “Some green amphibians are toads, and all green amphibians are frogs; therefore some frogs are toads”, we agree this time that its content makes sense (if all the green amphibians are frogs and if some are toads, then in the frogs category there are toads) but false in terms of belief (we know that frogs are not toads). This is called the incongruence between belief and logical validity.

We must therefore know that performance increases when logical validity is in agreement with our beliefs and decreases when it interferes with them (Evans et al., 1983 [3]). In other words, when our heuristics interfere with our formal reasoning system (so when there is incongruence between our belief and logical validity), we must initiate executive processes to control these heuristics, so that we can inhibit our System 1 to activate our System 2: this is called System 3 (Houdé, 2018 [7; 8]) or executive system, located in the frontal lobe, which is none other than the seat of executive functions which we were talking about at the start!

 

Indeed, many findings show that even when people are aware of a given heuristic, they still fall under it, suggesting that we need more than just awareness or knowledge in order to be optimal decision makers. And for a good reason: we need our cognitive resources! As long as we are already dealing with another cognitive load while making a judgment, we will be less effective in analysing a situation.

On the other hand, executive skills would have an important link with academic success (Duckworth & Seligman, 2012 [2]) rather than with IQ, which gives an idea of the importance of our executive system for reasoning. Some studies also indicate that mindfulness meditation is a factor in improving executive functions (Heeren, Van Broeck & Philippot, 2009 [6]).

To conclude, in everyday life, we encounter many situations where our logic contradicts our belief. To be able to overcome this mental confusion, it would be necessary to use our executive functions. However, if this were the case, we would not all be equal in terms of brain development, and being aware of these differences would allow us to think about the best way to stimulate our mental capacities according to our own shortcomings.

Currently, the question is rigorously studied by developmental psychologists, who think that one of the keys to developing the executive system is the good assimilation of theories of mind during our childhood (Harrison, 2006 [5]; Baillargeon, Scott, He & Bian, 2015 [1]). Would the intellectual training received in childhood have an impact on our future ability to rigorously assess a situation in terms of both our logical thinking system and our empirical knowledge? In other words, what influence does education have on our reasoning efficiency? Future research needs to be undertaken to understand how and to what extent this would be the case. Likewise, although System 3 seems to provide a satisfactory explanation for going beyond Kahneman’s dual process model, other phenomena may come into play.

 

 

References

[1] Baillargeon, Renée & Scott, Rose & He, Zijing & Sloane, Stephanie & Setoh, Peipei & Jin, Kyong-sun & Wu, Di & Bian, Lin. (2015). Psychological and Sociomoral Reasoning in Infancy. APA handbook of personality and social psychology, 1, 79-150. https://doi.org/10.1037/14341-003. 

[2] Duckworth, A.L., & Seligman, M.E.P. 2012. The Science and Practice on Self-Control. Perspect Psychol Sci, 12(5), 715-718. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691617690880. 

[3] Evans, J.S., Barston, J.L., & Pollard, P. (1983). On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Mem Cognit, 11(3), 295‐306. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196976. 

[4] Goel, V., & Dolan, R. J. (2003). Reciprocal neural response within lateral and ventral medial prefrontal cortex during hot and cold reasoning. NeuroImage, 20(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.07.027. 

[5] Harrison, Michelle. (2006). Executive Function, Parenting Style, and Theory of Mind. 

[6] Heeren, A., Van Broeck, N., & Philippot, P. 2009. The effects of mindfulness on executive processes and autobiographical memory specificity. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47(5), 403-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2009.01.017. 

[7] Houdé, O. (2018). Chapitre II. Les théories du double système : Système 1 (intuitif) et Système 2 (logique). Dans : Olivier Houdé éd., Le raisonnement (pp. 44-71). Paris cedex 14, France: Presses Universitaires de France. URL : https://www-cairn-info.sirius.parisdescartes.fr/le-raisonnement–9782130803898-page-44.htm. 

[8] Houdé, O. (2018). Chapitre III. Inhiber pour raisonner : le Système 3 (exécutif). Dans : Olivier Houdé éd., Le raisonnement (pp. 72-109). Paris cedex 14, France: Presses Universitaires de France. URL : https://www-cairn-info.sirius.parisdescartes.fr/le-raisonnement–9782130803898-page-72.htm. 

[9] Thompson, V.A. (2014). What Intuitions Are… and Are Not. Psychology and Learning Motivation, 60, 35-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800090-8.00002-0. 

[10] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124‐1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. 

 

READ MORE ARTICLES AT THIS LINK