Berent Iris, Platt Melanie, Sandoboe Gwendolyn M
Department of Psychology, Northeastern University.
Open Mind (Camb). 2019 Oct 1;3:101-114. doi: 10.1162/opmi_a_00029. eCollection 2019.
Few questions in science are as controversial as the origins of knowledge. Whether knowledge (e.g., "objects are cohesive") is partly innate has been debated for centuries. Here, we ask whether our difficulties with innate knowledge could be grounded in human cognition itself. In eight experiments, we compared reasoning about the innateness of traits that capture knowledge (cognitive traits) with noncognitive (sensorimotor and emotive) traits. Experiments 1-4 examined adult and infant traits; Experiment 5 presented detailed descriptions of published infant experiments. Results showed that people viewed cognitive traits as less likely to be innate in humans-the stronger the association with "thinking," the lower the rating for "innateness." Experiments 6-8 explored human, bird, and alien traits that were presented as innate. Participants, however, still considered cognitive traits as less likely to emerge spontaneously (i.e., be innate). These results show that people are selectively biased in reasoning about the origins of knowledge.
在科学领域,很少有问题像知识的起源那样具有争议性。知识(例如,“物体是有凝聚力的”)是否部分是天生的,这个问题已经争论了几个世纪。在这里,我们要问的是,我们在理解天生知识方面的困难是否可能源于人类认知本身。在八项实验中,我们比较了对捕捉知识的特质(认知特质)与非认知(感觉运动和情感)特质的先天性的推理。实验1 - 4研究了成人和婴儿的特质;实验5展示了已发表的婴儿实验的详细描述。结果表明,人们认为认知特质在人类中天生存在的可能性较小——与“思考”的关联越强,“先天性”的评分越低。实验6 - 8探讨了被描述为天生的人类、鸟类和外星生物的特质。然而,参与者仍然认为认知特质自发出现(即天生)的可能性较小。这些结果表明,人们在推理知识起源时存在选择性偏见。