Beaman C Philip
Department of Psychology, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Whiteknights, Reading, UK.
Cognition. 2002 Mar;83(2):215-20; discussion 221. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(01)00169-x.
It is argued that the recent criticism by Fodor (Cognition 75 (2000) 29) of "cheater detection" in the Wason selection task is based upon a false presumption about what the task entails. Fodor compares two different ways of presenting the task, rather than two different task domains (social and non-social). Consequently, the conclusion that the selection task can tell us nothing about either the architecture or the history of cognition is invalid. Fodor's explanation of the Wason selection task is examined experimentally and compared to predictions derived from social contract theory (Cognition 31 (1989) 187). It is concluded that, although Fodor's variant of the Wason selection task improves performance, this improvement is independent of the task domain and is insufficient to account for the "cheater detection" effect.
有人认为，福多（《认知》75卷（2000年）第29页）近期对沃森选择任务中“骗子检测”的批评基于对该任务性质的错误假定。福多比较的是呈现任务的两种不同方式，而非两个不同的任务领域（社会领域和非社会领域）。因此，关于选择任务无法告诉我们任何有关认知架构或认知历史的结论是无效的。对福多对沃森选择任务的解释进行了实验检验，并与源自社会契约理论（《认知》31卷（1989年）第187页）的预测进行了比较。得出的结论是，尽管福多版本的沃森选择任务提高了任务表现，但这种提高与任务领域无关，且不足以解释“骗子检测”效应。
