Yale PSYC 110: Introduction to Psychology — Lecture Notes

Lectures

1. Lecture 2: The Brain, Mind, and Dualism
2. Lecture 3: Foundations: Freud
3. Lecture 4: The Unconscious and Behaviorism
4. Lecture 5: Piaget, Cognitive Development, and Infant Cognition
5. Lecture 6: Language: Structure and Acquisition
6. Lecture 7: Animal Communication, Perception, Attention, and Memory
7. Lecture 8: Memory Systems, Retrieval, and False Memories
8. Lecture 9: The Psychology of Love and Attraction

Lecture notes from Yale PSYC 110: Introduction to Psychology — Professor Paul Bloom, Open Yale Courses. Covers lectures 2—9.

1. Lecture 2: The Brain, Mind, and Dualism

lugaru

Professor Paul Bloom – Chapter 1–5 Notes

1.1. 1. The Astonishing Hypothesis (Francis Crick)

Core Claim: "You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."

Translation: You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.

Why It’s Astonishing: This view contradicts human intuition and nearly all religious or philosophical traditions throughout history.

1.2. 2. Dualism: The Traditional View

1.2.1. What Is Dualism?

Dualism is the belief that humans consist of two separate kinds of things:

Physical material bodies
Immaterial minds/souls

Key Proponent: René Descartes

1.2.2. Descartes’ Position

Animals: Biological robots (“beast machines”) with no immaterial soul. Humans: Possess both physical bodies and immaterial souls that:

Reside in physical bodies
Are separate from physical bodies
Can exist without the physical body

1.3. 3. Descartes’ Arguments for Dualism

1.3.1. Argument #1: Human Capabilities Beyond Machines

Robots of his era could do reflexive actions.
Human bodies also have reflexes.
Humans, however, can:
Speak creatively
Choose freely
Coordinate complex behavior

Conclusion: Humans cannot be mere machines.

1.3.2. Argument #2: The Method of Doubt

Descartes doubted nearly everything:

Existence of God
Having a body
Being awake
Not being deceived (evil demon / The Matrix-style)

But he could not doubt:

He was thinking.

Conclusion: Cogito ergo sum — “I think, therefore I am.” Thus the mind (thinking substance) is separate from the physical body.

1.4. 4. Evidence of Dualism in Common Sense

1.4.1. Embedded in Language

We say:

“My body”
“My brain”

as if they are possessions instead of identity.

1.4.2. Intuitions About Personal Identity

People imagine identity preserved across radical bodily changes:

Body-swap movies
Reincarnation
Kafka’s Metamorphosis
Odyssey companions turned into pigs but minds remain

1.4.3. Multiple Personalities / Possession

Widespread beliefs:

Several people in one body
Spirits taking control

1.4.4. Survival After Death

Nearly all cultures believe the self survives bodily death. Survey results: 96% of Christians — “I’m going to Heaven.” Even many non-religious people believe the same.

1.5. 5. Scientific Consensus Against Dualism

1.5.1. The Modern View

The mind is what the brain does. No self independent of the brain.

1.5.2. Problems With Dualism

Unscientific: Explains nothing, can’t address language learning, mental illness, emotional responses.
Connection Problem: No explanation for how a nonphysical soul interacts with a physical body.
Physical Things Can Be Complex: Modern computers can play chess, recognize patterns, compute, etc.
Brain–Mind Correlation:
- Brain damage → mental changes
- Drugs → mental changes
- Brain imaging → specific regions for vision, sound, language, moral reasoning

1.6. 6. The Neuron: Basic Building Blocks

1.6.1. Structure of a Neuron

Dendrites: Receive excitatory (+) or inhibitory (−) signals
Cell Body: Sums signals; fires at threshold (~+60)
Axon: Sends signals; often insulated with myelin

1.6.2. Key Facts

~1,000 billion neurons
Each connects to thousands of others
Types:
Sensory neurons
Motor neurons
Interneurons

1.6.3. All-or-Nothing Firing

Neurons fire or they don’t — no halfway.
Intensity encoded by:
Number of neurons firing
Firing frequency

1.7. 7. How Neurons Communicate

Neurons do not touch.
Communication occurs across a tiny gap: the synapse.
Neurotransmitters cross the gap and influence the next neuron.

1.8. 8. Psychopharmacology: Drugs & Neurotransmitters

1.8.1. Types of Drugs

Agonists: Increase neurotransmitter effects
Produce more
Prevent cleanup
Mimic neurotransmitters
Antagonists: Decrease neurotransmitter effects
Destroy neurotransmitters
Block receptor sites

1.8.2. Examples

Curare: Antagonist → paralysis, death
Alcohol: Inhibitory → disinhibits frontal lobe
Amphetamines: Increase norepinephrine → arousal
Prozac: Increases serotonin availability
L-DOPA: Increases dopamine → helps Parkinson’s symptoms

1.9. 9. Brain Architecture: Not Like a Computer

1.9.1. Why the Brain Differs

Damage Resistance: Brain can reroute functions.
Speed Despite Slow Tissue:
- Computers: serial, fast wires
- Brain: massive parallel processing

1.9.2. Neural Networks

Engineers attempt machine models of the brain, but current systems are far less capable than even a two-year-old human.

1.10. 10. Brain Functions Not Needing the Brain

Certain reflexes operate without cortical involvement:

Newborn sucking
Withdrawal from pain
Vomiting
Sexual reflexes

1.11. 11. Subcortical Structures

Medulla: Heart rate, breathing
Cerebellum: Balance, coordination
Hypothalamus: Feeding, hunger, thirst, some sleep regulation

1.12. 12. The Cortex

Wrinkled outer layer; flattened = ~2 ft²
Evolutionary expansion:
Fish → none
Reptiles → little
Primates → a lot
Humans → huge (80% of brain)

1.12.1. Four Lobes

Frontal
Parietal
Occipital
Temporal

Left & right duplication.

1.13. 13. Topological Maps

1.13.1. Discovery

Electrical stimulation of cortex produced movements, sensations, colors, sounds.

1.13.2. Two Maps

Motor Cortex: Movement
Somatosensory Cortex: Sensation

1.13.3. Features

Topographical
Size reflects control/precision, not body size
Only a fraction of cortex — rest supports higher reasoning

1.14. 14. Methods for Studying the Brain

1.14.1. Imaging

CAT, PET, fMRI
Show active areas during tasks

1.14.2. Lesion Studies

Damaged regions reveal function:

Apraxia: Can move but not coordinate
Agnosia: “Psychic blindness”
Sensory Neglect: Ignore half of world
Aphasias: Language impairments
Acquired Psychopathy: Damage to frontal lobes

1.15. 15. The Two Hemispheres

1.15.1. Lateralization

Right-handed people (~90%): Left hemisphere = language

Right hemisphere: math, music

1.15.2. Crossover

Visual fields cross to opposite hemispheres
Motor control crosses as well

1.15.3. Corpus Callosum

Massive fiber bundle linking hemispheres. Split-brain cases reveal hidden specialization.

1.16. 16. The Hard Problem of Consciousness

1.16.1. Info-Processing Approach

Mind treated like a computer program. Explains many cognitive functions.

1.16.2. What Remains

Subjective experience (“what it feels like”) is unexplained.

Classic framing: How does physical tissue produce experience?

1.17. 17. Mechanistic Conception: Ethical Implications

Mechanistic view: All mental life emerges from physical processes.

1.17.1. Conflicts With Humanist Values

Free Will: If everything is mechanistic, where is choice?
Intrinsic Value: How do machines have moral worth?
Spiritual Value: Mechanistic models leave no room for soul.

1.17.2. Possible Responses

Reject scientific view → embrace dualism
Reject humanist values → all illusions
Reconcile both → integrate science + meaning

1.18. Key Takeaways

Dualism vs. Materialism remains central debate
Science strongly supports mind = brain activity
Brain structure/function deeply map mental processes
Consciousness remains mysterious
Mechanistic view challenges free will and morality

1.19. Study Questions

What is Crick’s Astonishing Hypothesis and why is it astonishing?
What are Descartes’ arguments for dualism and their weaknesses?
How do neurons encode intensity despite all-or-nothing firing?
What distinguishes agonists from antagonists? Give examples.
Why can’t the brain operate like a traditional serial-processing computer?
What do motor cortex maps reveal about body representation?
What is the hard problem of consciousness, and why is it still unsolved?
How does a mechanistic view challenge ideas of free will and responsibility?

2. Lecture 3: Foundations: Freud

lugaru

2.1. Historical Context & Significance

Sigmund Freud (1850s–1940s)

Born in Austria, died in London (fled Nazis at the start of WWII)
Most famous psychologist in history
Known for building a comprehensive theory over decades (not for a single discovery)
Extremely energetic and productive (also a cocaine user)
Nominated for Nobel Prize (medicine & literature) – never won
Controversial personality:
Ambitious, often dishonest
Harsh toward both friends and enemies
Seen as a sexual renegade, threatening Christian values

2.2. Scope of Theory

Freud proposed a grand theory that attempted to explain:

Daily life
Child development
Mental illness
Religion
War
Love
Dreams
Memory lapses
Attraction and repulsion

This contrasts with most psychological theories, which are much more narrow and specialized.

2.3. Core Theoretical Framework

2.3.1. The Unconscious Mind Structure

Freud proposed three components in constant conflict:

Id (present at birth)

Primitive, animal self
Seeks:
Food
Warmth
Elimination
Sexual satisfaction
Operates on the Pleasure Principle – wants immediate gratification
Completely unconscious and irrational
Called a state of “polymorphous perversity” by Freud

Ego (develops early)

The conscious self
Operates on the Reality Principle
Mediates between id and superego
Plans how to satisfy desires or suppress them
Source of conscious awareness

Superego (develops through socialization)

Internalized parental and social rules
Acts as conscience
Also irrational in its own way – says “you should be ashamed”
Not a sophisticated moral philosopher, just a harsh internal critic

Key Point: Most of this system is unconscious – you cannot simply introspect to see these processes.

2.3.2. Psychosexual Development Stages

Stage 1: Oral Stage (infancy)

Pleasure center: mouth (sucking, chewing)
Fixation cause: premature weaning
Resulting “oral personality”:
Overeating
Smoking
Gum chewing
Dependency and neediness

Stage 2: Anal Stage (early childhood)

Pleasure center: elimination
Fixation cause: poor toilet training
Resulting “anal personality”:
Compulsive
Obsessively clean
Stingy
Unwilling to “let go”

Stage 3: Phallic Stage (3–4 years)

Pleasure center: genitals
Fixation can lead to:
Excessive masculinity
Strong need for attention or domination

Oedipus Complex (in boys)

Boy loves mother (source of comfort)
Sees father as rival/competitor
Fantasizes about killing father
Believes father knows this
Fears castration as punishment
Resolution:
Identifies with father
Represses sexual feelings for mother

Electra Complex (in girls)

Girl discovers she “lacks” a penis
Believes she was castrated
Experiences penis envy
Turns to father (who has a penis) as love object
Rejects mother (who is also “lacking”)
Supposedly shapes later sexual preferences and allegiances

Stage 4: Latency Stage (childhood)

Sexual feelings are repressed after Oedipal/Electra resolution
Lasts several years

Stage 5: Genital Stage (puberty onward)

Mature adult sexuality
However, unconscious conflicts continue to operate.

2.4. Defense Mechanisms

Normal psychological processes that keep unconscious content out of consciousness:

Sublimation – Channel sexual/aggressive energy into socially acceptable outlets (e.g., art, sports)
Displacement – Redirect emotions to safer targets (e.g., hate father → kick dog)
Projection – Attribute your own unacceptable desires to others (e.g., homophobic person projecting own impulses)
Rationalization – Provide socially acceptable reasons for unacceptable behavior (e.g., “spanking is good parenting”)
Regression – Return to an earlier developmental stage under stress (e.g., thumb sucking, crying)

2.5. Clinical Applications

2.5.1. Hysteria (outdated term)

Symptoms:
Blindness
Deafness
Paralysis
Trembling
Panic attacks
Amnesia (with no physiological cause)
Freud’s view: symptoms exist to prevent unconscious content from emerging.

2.5.2. Psychoanalytic Method

Originally: hypnosis
Later: free association
Goal: overcome resistance and gain insight
Theoretical claim: once the unconscious cause is understood, the symptom disappears.

2.6. Dreams

Manifest content: what you consciously experience in the dream
Latent content: hidden meaning/symbolism
Freud: all dreams are wish fulfillment (even forbidden wishes)
Universal themes reflect unconscious struggles.

2.7. Scientific Critique

2.7.1. Major Problems with Freudian Theory

1. Unfalsifiability (Karl Popper’s critique)

Theory is too vague to test.
Predicts everything, so it can’t be proven wrong.
Example:
Patient agrees with interpretation → Freud is right.
Patient disagrees → “Your resistance proves I’m right.”
Similar issue with astrology vs. real science (which can be disproven).

2. Lack of Empirical Support

No strong evidence that:
Oral/anal personalities correspond to weaning/toilet training history.
Cross-cultural data:
No consistent link between child-rearing practices and Freud’s predicted adult personality outcomes.
Freud’s theories about homosexuality are unsupported.
Psychoanalysis is not more effective than other treatments for mental disorders.

3. Validation Problems

You cannot validate the theory simply through psychoanalysis (circular reasoning).
When Freud’s ideas are tested via specific predictions, they often fail.

2.7.2. Current Status

Rarely studied in psychology departments as current theory.
More common in:
History departments
Literature departments
Few modern psychologists identify as Freudian practitioners.
Psychoanalytic practice continues mostly outside academic psychology.

2.8. Valid Contributions (Modern Psychology Support)

2.8.1. The Dynamic Unconscious Survives

Modern evidence supports the idea of unconscious processes:

Language processing – automatic parsing of sentences without awareness.
Automatic behaviors – driving, tying shoes, etc., without conscious control.
Preferences shaped unconsciously:
Initiation effect: the harder you work for something, the more you like it.
Price effect: the more you pay, the more you value it.
Cognitive ease: the easier it is to list reasons, the stronger your preference feels.
Terror management studies: subliminal death-related words increase nationalism and decrease tolerance.
Racial/sexual prejudice: people hold implicit attitudes they’re unaware of and can’t easily control.

2.8.2. Schwarz Experiment (lecture example)

Group 1:
List 3 positive features of a loved one → increased liking.
Group 2:
List 10 positive features → decreased liking.
Interpretation:
Difficulty generating 10 reasons makes people doubt their feelings.
People are unaware that the task difficulty influenced their ratings.

2.9. Historical Impact

Freud’s ideas have reshaped our worldview so deeply that we forget how things looked before:

We now take for granted:
Unconscious motivation
Childhood shaping adult personality
Symbolic meaning of actions and symptoms
Freud is a “victim of his own success” – his concepts are so integrated that we rarely credit him explicitly.

2.10. Lecture Questions Addressed

Single-parent families: Freud’s theory was built around upper-class European nuclear families – it fits poorly with many modern family structures.
Women and the superego: Freud believed women had weaker superegos than men (a view now seen as highly problematic and sexist).
Cross-cultural variation: Little evidence that his psychosexual stages apply universally across cultures.
Medication: Freud thought talk therapy was superior; many modern psychoanalysts argue drugs mask symptoms rather than addressing root causes.

3. Lecture 4: The Unconscious and Behaviorism

lugaru

3.1. Part 1: The Unconscious – Evolutionary Perspective

3.1.1. Why Would an Unconscious Evolve?

Core Question Reframing

Traditional question: “Why are some things unconscious?”
Better question: “Why is only a tiny subset of mental life conscious?”
Reality: Most mental activity is unconscious.

3.1.2. Deception Hypothesis

Basic Premise

Evolution favored unconscious processes.
The best lies are those we believe ourselves.
You are a more effective liar if you believe your own deception.

Deception in Nature

Chimpanzees: Hair stands on end → appear larger.
Angler fish: Lure mimics prey → fools other fish.

Human Deception

Humans excel at psychological deception.
Constant self-presentation: tougher, smarter, sexier, more trustworthy.
Social psychology studies strategies for managing impressions.

Lie Detection Arms Race

Co-evolution of deceptive abilities and lie-detection mechanisms.

Hitchcock Anecdote

Child actor couldn’t cry on command.
Hitchcock told him: “Your parents have left you and are never coming back.”
Genuine emotion → better acting.
Principle: Authentic emotions outperform performed ones.

Applications to Pain & Emotion

Pain contest → best strategy is to actually be in pain.
Love → persuasion works better if you truly believe it.

Unconscious as Deception Shield

Dark motives stay hidden.
If you don’t consciously know your motives, you can’t reveal them involuntarily.

3.2. Part 2: Behaviorism – Historical Context

3.2.1. Origins and Development

Psychoanalysis: Created by Freud.
Behaviorism: Pre-Skinner; early leader = Watson.
Skinner: Packaged, expanded, and popularized behaviorism.

3.2.2. Skinner’s Cultural Impact

1960s–1970s: Talk shows, bestselling books, mainstream influence.

3.3. Part 3: Core Principles of Behaviorism

3.3.1. Principle 1: Extreme Learning Emphasis

Everything you know/are = learned.
No innate human nature.
Humans are infinitely malleable.

Watson’s Famous Boast

“Give me a dozen healthy infants … I’ll train them to become any type of specialist I choose.”

Egalitarian Implications

No group is inherently superior.
Differences arise from learning, not biology.

3.3.2. Principle 2: Anti-Mentalism

Mental states (desires, wishes, goals) considered unscientific.
Replace them with observable constructs:
Stimulus
Response
Reinforcement
Punishment
Environment

3.3.3. Principle 3: No Significant Species Differences

All animals learn via same mechanisms.
Therefore: Nonhuman animals can model human learning.

3.4. Part 4: Three Learning Mechanisms

3.5. Mechanism 1: Habituation

Decrease in response after repeated exposure to stimulus.
Adaptive: Frees attention for novel events.

3.5.1. Key Properties

Harmful stimuli remain noticed.
Benign, repeated stimuli fade from awareness.

3.5.2. Research Use

Studying infants and nonverbal animals.

3.6. Mechanism 2: Classical Conditioning

3.6.1. Definition

Learning association between two stimuli.

3.6.2. Pavlov’s Discovery

Food (UCS) → salivation (UCR)
Bell (neutral) + food → salivation
Bell becomes CS → salivation becomes CR

3.6.3. Terms

UCS: Unconditioned Stimulus
UCR: Unconditioned Response
CS: Conditioned Stimulus
CR: Conditioned Response

3.6.4. Extinction & Spontaneous Recovery

Repeated CS without UCS → CR weakens.
After delay, CR returns when CS is reintroduced.

3.6.5. Classical Conditioning Applications

Case Study: Little Albert

UCS: Loud noise
UCR: Fear
CS: Rat
CR: Fear
Generalization to related furry objects.

Phobia Development

Neutral stimulus + trauma → phobia.

Systematic Desensitization

Pair feared stimulus with relaxation.

Hunger & Addiction

Eating/drinking/smoking become tied to environmental cues.

Fetish Development (Speculative)

Accidental pairing of sexual arousal with unrelated objects.

3.6.6. Modern View: Preparation Theory

Classical conditioning prepares organism for upcoming events.
CS must precede UCS for strongest learning.
CR ≠ UCR (CR is preparatory; UCR is direct).

Example: Child Abuse

Raised hand (CS) → flinch (CR)
Hit (UCS) → pain (UCR)

3.6.7. Pop Culture: A Clockwork Orange

UCS: Drug-induced nausea
CS: Violent imagery
CR: Nausea at violence

3.7. Mechanism 3: Operant Conditioning

3.7.1. Definition

Learning relationship between action and consequence.

3.7.2. Differences from Classical Conditioning

Classical = passive
Operant = active

3.7.3. Thorndike’s Puzzle Box

Cats escape by chance.
Rewarded behaviors increase.
Non-rewarded behaviors extinguish.

3.7.4. Law of Effect

Reward → increased behavior
No reward → decreased behavior

3.7.5. Reinforcement Types

Positive Reinforcement

Add something desirable.

Negative Reinforcement

Remove something aversive.
NOT punishment.

Punishment

Decreases likelihood of behavior.

3.7.6. Shaping: Training Complex Behavior

Reinforce successive approximations.
Build behavior step-by-step.

3.7.7. Primary vs. Secondary Reinforcers

Primary: food, water, sex, pain avoidance.
Secondary: learned via association (e.g., praise, tokens).

3.7.8. Token Economies

Tokens exchanged for primary reinforcers.
Allows complex reward schedules.

3.7.9. Schedules of Reinforcement

Ratio vs. Interval

Ratio: Based on number of responses.
Interval: Based on time.

Fixed vs. Variable

Fixed: Predictable.
Variable: Unpredictable.

Four Schedules

FR (Fixed Ratio)
VR (Variable Ratio)
FI (Fixed Interval)
VI (Variable Interval)

Slot Machine Example: VR Schedule

Most addictive reinforcement schedule.

3.7.10. Partial Reinforcement Effect

Intermittently rewarded behaviors resist extinction.
Example: child nagging → parent gives in occasionally.

3.7.11. Skinner’s Extension to Human Society

Proposed behaviorist engineering for:
Justice system
Parenting
Social design
Viewed free will as unnecessary concept.

3.8. Part 5: Criticisms and Limitations of Behaviorism

3.8.1. 1. No Innate Knowledge

Language acquisition shows innate structures.
Early object understanding present in infants.
Sexual preferences emerge without training.

3.8.2. 2. Unobservables Are Scientific

Physics, chemistry, biology all study unobservable constructs.
Internal mental mechanisms required for explanation.

3.8.3. 3. Learning Without Reinforcement

Tolman’s rats formed mental maps without reward.
Demonstrates latent learning.

3.8.4. 4. Species-Specific Learning Constraints

Certain behaviors easier to learn depending on species and instinct.

3.8.5. Garcia Effect

Taste + nausea → strong learning
Taste + shock → no learning
Prepared learning is biologically specific.

3.8.6. Prepared Phobias

Humans and chimps predisposed to fear snakes, spiders, heights.
Rare phobias for modern dangers (cars, outlets).

3.8.7. 5. Chomsky’s Critique

Behaviorist terms become vague in human application.
Risk of untestable circular explanations.
Helped end behaviorism’s dominance.

3.9. Part 6: Behaviorism’s Lasting Contributions

3.9.1. 1. Learning Mechanisms

Habituation, classical conditioning, operant conditioning remain valid.

3.9.2. 2. Practical Training Techniques

Effective for animals, infants, autistic individuals, clinical settings.

3.9.3. 3. Institutional Applications

Token economies in prisons, hospitals, etc.

3.9.4. What Survived

Empirical methods
Learning principles
Reinforcement-based training

3.9.5. What Failed

Blank-slate theory
Anti-mentalism
Universal learning mechanisms
Complete reduction to stimulus-response

3.10. Key Terms Summary

3.10.1. Classical Conditioning

UCS / UCR
CS / CR
Extinction
Spontaneous recovery
Stimulus generalization
Systematic desensitization

3.10.2. Operant Conditioning

Law of effect
Positive/negative reinforcement
Punishment
Shaping
Successive approximations
Primary/secondary reinforcers
Token economy
Ratio/interval schedules
Partial reinforcement effect

3.10.3. General Concepts

Habituation
Anti-mentalism
Prepared learning
Garcia effect
Mental maps
Latent learning
Species-specific constraints

4. Lecture 5: Piaget, Cognitive Development, and Infant Cognition

lugaru

4.1. Part 1: Jean Piaget - Theoretical Framework

4.1.1. Historical Influence

Current Impact:

Most modern methods, theories, and ideas in developmental psychology shaped by Piaget’s influence
Foundational figure in cognitive development research

4.1.2. Core Philosophical Position

Children as Active Thinkers:

Not passive recipients of information
Actively trying to figure out the world
Described as "little scientists"

Ambitious Foundational Goal:

Did NOT initially study children out of interest in children per se
Primary interest: Emergence of knowledge in general
Discipline he created: "Genetic epistemology" (origins of knowledge)

Theoretical Reasoning:

Studied individual child development as window into knowledge development generally
Believed ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny

"Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny":

Definition: Development of individual mimics/repeats development of species
Status: Entirely not true
But: Beautiful phrase and Piaget committed to this principle
Logic: How a kid develops → tells us about development of knowledge more generally

4.1.3. Two Core Learning Mechanisms

1. Assimilation:

Expanding the range of things you respond to
Extending existing schemas to new objects/situations
Example: Baby accustomed to sucking on breast → comes to suck on bottle, then rattle
Psychological sense: Have a way of looking at world → expand it to encompass new things

2. Accommodation:

Changing HOW you respond
Modifying existing schemas when they don’t fit
Example: Baby forms mouth differently depending on what’s being sucked
More generally: Change your system of knowledge itself to fit reality

Interaction of Mechanisms:

Both mechanisms drive child through different developmental stages
Continuous interplay between assimilation and accommodation
Child constructs understanding through active engagement

4.2. Part 2: Piaget’s Stage Theory

4.2.1. Distinction from Freudian Stage Theory

Quite different from Freud’s psychosexual stages
Based on cognitive abilities rather than psychological conflicts

4.2.2. Research Methodology

Piaget’s Methods:

Ask children to solve problems
Ask them questions
Observe how they solve problems differently at different ages

Result:

Discoveries of age-related differences led to Stage Theory
Different cognitive capabilities emerge at predictable ages

4.2.3. Stage 1: Sensorimotor Stage (Birth to ~2 years)

Defining Characteristics:

Child is purely a physical creature
No understanding of external world in meaningful cognitive sense
No understanding of:
Past
Future
Stability
Differentiation
Child touches and sees but doesn’t yet reason

Major Achievement: Object Permanence

Definition:

Understanding that things continue to exist when you no longer see them

Demonstration (Adults):

When looking at someone, you know they continue to exist if they duck down
Not just perception - cognitive understanding of continued existence

Piaget’s Claim About Infants:

Before 6 months: Children lack object permanence
If you hide object child likes (e.g., rattle) behind something: "it’s like it’s gone"
Child genuinely thinks object has ceased to exist
Things don’t continue to exist when not looking at them

Peek-a-Boo Interpretation:

Why babies are surprised by peek-a-boo
Sequence from baby’s perspective:
See adult face
Adult covers face
Baby: "He’s gone" (literally ceased to exist)
Adult uncovers face: "He’s back!" (literally came into existence)
Repeat cycle
Each disappearance/reappearance is genuine for the baby

4.2.4. A-not-B Task (Changing Hiding Places Problem)

Setup:

Test with 9-month-old (just starting to understand object permanence)
Hide object in cup at location A where child can’t see it
Child successfully reaches for it at location A
Repeat multiple times - child continues reaching successfully at A

Critical Test:

Move object to location B (while child watches)
Child still reaches for location A

Piaget’s Interpretation:

Children not smart enough to track object movement
Don’t understand that object is no longer at A
Further evidence they don’t understand objects fully
Understanding of objects takes considerable time and learning to develop

4.2.5. Stage 2: Preoperational Stage (~2-7 years)

Transition:

Child grasps world initially only in physical/sensorimotor way
In preoperational period: Capacity to represent world mentally emerges
Can have "world inside your head"

BUT: Significant Limitations:

1. Egocentrism

Common English Meaning:

Being selfish

Piaget’s Technical Meaning:

Children literally cannot understand that others see world differently from them
Not moral failing - cognitive limitation

Three Mountains Task:

Setup:
Three mountains positioned on table
Child sits on one side
Asked to draw what they see - 4-5 year olds can do this easily
Then asked to draw how mountains would appear from other side
Result: Children find this extraordinarily difficult
Interpretation: Very difficult to grasp world as another person might see it

2. Conservation Problems

Definition of Conservation:

Ways to transform things such that some aspects change but others remain the same
Certain properties are conserved through transformation

Examples:

Liquid Conservation:

Pour glass of water into different shaped glass (shallow or tall)
Amount of water doesn’t change
But according to Piaget, children don’t know this

Number Conservation:

Take bunch of pennies and spread them out
Don’t get more pennies by spreading
But children don’t understand this

Classic Demonstration - Two Rows of Checkers:

Procedure:

Present two rows of checkers aligned one-to-one
Ask child which has more
Child correctly says they’re the same
Experimenter spreads out one row (same number of items, just more spaced)
Ask again which has more
Child now says the spread-out row has more

Significance:

"Really stupid" but robust finding
Replicates across children
Suggests fundamental limitation in understanding transformations

Practical Application:

Anyone with access to 4-5 year old can replicate this
Simple demonstration of cognitive stage

4.2.6. Stage 3: Concrete Operations (7-12 years)

Achievements:

CAN solve conservation problems
Understand physical transformations preserve quantity

Limitations:

Still limited in capacity for abstract reasoning
Stuck to some extent in concrete world

Examples of What’s Beyond Them:

Mathematical notions: Infinity
Logical notions: Logical entailment
Abstract theoretical concepts

Summary:

Can do a lot
But abstract, theoretical thinking not yet fully developed

4.2.7. Stage 4: Formal Operations (~12+ years)

Capabilities:

Abstract reasoning emerges
Scientific reasoning possible
Can think hypothetically
Can reason about abstract concepts

Full Cognitive Maturity:

Able to engage in adult-level abstract thought

4.3. Part 3: Evaluation of Piaget’s Theory

4.3.1. Why Piaget Fared Better Than Freud or Skinner

1. Falsifiable Claims:

Interesting and testable claims about child development
Claims about conservation failures at different ages easily tested
Systematically testable predictions
Lot of empirical support

2. Rich Theoretical Framework:

Pulled together many observations in coherent way
Wrote many books and articles
Very well articulated theory
Comprehensive explanatory system

3. Striking Findings:

Conservation findings: Nobody noticed before Piaget
Object permanence problems: Previously unknown
Revealed hidden aspects of child cognition
Discoveries that were both surprising and replicable

4.3.2. Limitations of Piaget’s Theory

1. Theoretical Limitations:

Explanatory Gaps:

Interesting question: Does he really EXPLAIN transitions?
How does child go from concrete thinker to abstract thinker?
How does child go from lacking object permanence to having it?
Describes stages well
But mechanism of transition less clear

2. Methodological Limitations:

Primary Method: Question and Answer:

Heavy reliance on verbal responses from children

Problem:

Children aren’t very good with language
Might lead to underestimating what they actually know
Particularly problematic the younger the child

General Principle:

Performance may not reflect competence
Verbal limitations may mask underlying knowledge

3. Importance of Methodology in Science

General Principle:

Often 90% of science is discovering clever method to test hypotheses
Methodology is crucial in psychology

Example from Different Domain: Tickling Research:

Research Questions:

When do people laugh when tickled?
Where do you have to tickle?
Can you tickle yourself?
Does it have to be surprise?

Methodological Challenge:

Very difficult to study in lab
Can’t just have graduate student tickle participants
Social dynamics interfere with natural response

Henry Gleitman’s Solution:

Built a "tickle machine"
Box with two giant hands that went "r-r-r-r"

Result:

Complete failure
People couldn’t go near machine without convulsing in laughter
Anticipation destroyed natural response

Point:

Sometimes clever methodology fails
Sometimes methodology itself creates problems
Need to match method to question

4. Factual Limitations:

Central Question:

What do infants and children REALLY know?

Possibility:

Due to methodological limitations, Piaget systematically underestimated children’s and babies' knowledge
Reliance on verbal responses and motor responses may have missed cognitive capabilities

Evidence:

Modern research suggests this is indeed the case
Babies know more than Piaget thought

4.4. Part 4: Modern Science of Infant Cognition

4.4.1. Historical Context and Consensus View

Long-Standing View:

Tremendous philosophical and psychological consensus
Babies are essentially stupid
Babies don’t know much about the world

The Onion Headline:

Satirizes common view: "New Study Reveals Babies Are Stupid"
Captures traditional assumption about infant cognition

Recent Research:

Challenges this consensus
Suggests babies might be smarter than traditionally thought
But requires clever methods to discover this intelligence

4.4.2. The Challenge of Studying Babies

Fundamental Problem:

Can’t ask questions - babies can’t talk
Could look at behavior but babies aren’t well-coordinated or skilled
Need clever, indirect methods

4.4.3. Method 1: Brain Waves

Technique:

Measure electrical activity in brain
Use electrodes on scalp

Example Image:

Child with electrodes
(Joke about child dying - obviously didn’t happen)
Shows feasibility of method

Limitations:

Expensive equipment
Difficult to interpret
Limited information about specific cognitive content

4.4.4. Method 2: Pacifier Sucking

Basic Capability:

One thing babies CAN do consistently: suck on pacifier

Question:

How could you learn anything from sucking?

Answer:

Build machines that respond to sucking
When baby sucks, they hear music or language
Measure how much they suck to determine preferences
Sucking rate indicates interest/preference

Applications:

Studying auditory preferences
Language discrimination
Musical preferences

4.4.5. Method 3: Looking Times (Most Important Method)

Primary Researcher:

Elizabeth Spelke (developmental psychologist)
Pioneered most research using looking times
Developed sophisticated paradigms

Basic Principle:

Babies CAN look
Can control eye movements
Duration and direction of looking reveals cognitive processing

4.4.6. Two Looking-Time Paradigms

Paradigm 1: Preference

Logic:

If baby looks longer at X than Y, baby prefers X

Example Applications:

1. Dogs vs. Cats:

Show picture of dog on one side
Show picture of cat on other side
Measure which one baby looks at longer
Reveals preference

2. Pretty Faces vs. Ugly Faces:

Put pretty face on one side
Put ugly face on other side
See if baby prefers to look at pretty one
Tests aesthetic preferences

Paradigm 2: Habituation and Surprise

Key Concept:

Habituation = fancy word for boredom

Procedure:

Show baby something over and over again
Baby learns it’s not very interesting (habituation from behaviorism)
Show baby something different
If baby sees it AS different, baby will look longer

Measurement:

Increased looking time = detection of difference
No increase in looking = baby sees stimuli as same

Example Application: Color Vision

Question:

Can babies tell green from red?

Procedure:

Show green patch repeatedly
Baby habituates (gets bored)
Show red patch

If they look the same to baby:

Baby continues to tune out
No increase in looking time

If red looks different:

Baby perks up
Increased looking time

Result:

This IS how researchers study color vision in babies

Principle:

Show babies something that shouldn’t happen
If babies also think it shouldn’t happen, they’ll look longer

Method:

Essentially scientists do magic tricks
Violate expected physical or social rules
Measure surprise through looking time

4.5. Part 5: Object Permanence Research - Challenging Piaget

4.5.1. The Central Question

Is it really true babies don’t know objects remain when out of sight?
Piaget said yes - modern research says no

4.5.2. Study 1: Spelke and Baillargeon - Occluded Bar

Display:

Block positioned in center
Bar moves back and forth
Bar visible on top of block and below block
Middle section (behind block) is occluded

Adult Perception:

Obvious assumption: There’s a complete bar
Never see middle section but assume it’s there
Understand object continues behind occluder

Alternative (Simpler) Perception:

Could just see: bar on top + bar on bottom
Two separate objects
Wouldn’t expect anything in middle (never saw it)

Test:

Habituate babies to this display
Then show either:
Display B: Complete bar (expected)
Display C: Broken bar (unexpected if assume object continuity)

Results:

Adults expect B; C is almost a joke
Babies respond SAME WAY as adults
Babies expect complete bar
Surprised by (look longer at) broken bar

Interpretation:

Even young babies understand objects continue behind occluders
Have concept of object permanence
Contradicts Piaget’s claims

4.5.3. Study 2: Baillargeon - Drawbridge and Block

Test Age:

Six-month-olds

Setup:

Stage with block on it
Screen rises and obscures block

Two Possibilities:

If babies expect block to still be there:

Should think screen will be stopped by block
Screen can’t pass through solid object

If "out of sight, out of mind" (Piaget’s view):

Should expect screen to keep going
Object no longer exists, so nothing to stop screen

Procedure:

Create two displays:
Possible event: Screen stops at block (block stops screen)
Impossible event: Remove block with trap door; screen continues full rotation

Results:

Baby "screams" (figurative - actually just looks longer)
Babies surprised by impossible event
Look longer at screen passing through where block should be

Interpretation:

Babies expect object to remain
Understand solid objects should impede screen
Have object permanence

4.5.4. Study 3: Karen Wynn - Arithmetic and Object Permanence

Research Location:

Yale University, Karen Wynn’s lab

Methods:

Real objects in some studies
Animated versions in others

Animated Example:

Baby sees: 1 object → +1 object added → occluder
Expected result: 2 objects
Baby then sees result:
2 objects: Expected (no surprise)
1 object: Unexpected (surprise - baby looks longer)
3 objects: Unexpected (surprise - baby looks longer)
0 objects: Unexpected (surprise - baby looks longer)

Test:

2 - 1 = ?
Babies expect: 1
When 2 - 1 = 2 or 3 or 0: Babies look longer (surprise)

Age:

Even six-month-olds sensitive to these rudimentary arithmetic facts

Implications:

Tells us about mathematical knowledge
Tells us babies expect things to remain when out of sight
Have object permanence much earlier than Piaget claimed

4.6. Part 6: Limits of Infant Physical Knowledge

4.6.1. Important Caveat

Infants' understanding of physical world present from very start
BUT not entirely complete
Certain things babies DON’T know

4.6.2. Gravity Understanding: Developmental Progression

Study: Floating Block

Display:

Block positioned mid-air with no support
Clearly violates gravity

6-Month-Olds:

Find this surprising
Understand objects can’t float in mid-air
Basic gravity concept present

Display: Block Partially Supported

Block with small portion resting on surface
Most of block extends over edge unsupported

6-Month-Olds:

Don’t find this surprising
Not smart enough to know this should fall
Don’t understand center of gravity/support requirements

12-Month-Olds:

DO think it should fall
Understand need for adequate support

Display: Top-Heavy Configuration

Object balanced but unstable
Should tip over

12-Month-Olds:

Don’t find anything weird about this
Don’t understand instability

Adults:

Sophisticated enough to understand unstable configuration
Know it should fall over

4.6.3. General Principle

Conclusion:

Some things are built in (basic object continuity, simple physics)
Some things develop over time (gravity details, stability)
Raises question: How do we explain development?

4.7. Part 7: Mechanisms of Development

4.7.1. Mechanism 1: Neural Maturation - Growth of Brain

Neuron Count:

Most neurons you have now in your head were present in mother’s uterus
Don’t generate massive numbers of new neurons through development

What DOES Happen in Development:

Primary Process: Pruning

Getting rid of neurons
Neural structures change radically
Babies eliminate excess neurons through development

Synaptic Growth:

While pruning neurons, connections between neurons grow extensively
"Connections grow like crazy"
Process of synaptic growth: Connections across different synapses
Peaks at approximately 2 years of age

Myelination:

Fatty sheath develops over neurons
Makes neurons more effective at transmission
Continues through development
Even teenagers not fully myelinated
Particularly: Not fully myelinated in frontal lobes

Frontal Lobe Functions:

Involved in restraint
Involved in willpower
Executive function

Implication:

Problem might be: Baby’s brain doesn’t develop certain capacities yet
Physical maturation of brain limits cognitive capabilities

4.7.2. Mechanism 2: Problems with Inhibition

Relationship to Brain Development:

Related to frontal lobe development
Comes out clearly in A-not-B error

A-not-B Error Revisited:

Baby reaches at A repeatedly
Object moved to B
Baby continues reaching at A

Two Possible Explanations:

Piaget’s Explanation:

Babies don’t know anything about objects
Lack understanding of object permanence

Alternative Explanation:

Once you do something, it’s hard to stop
Takes cognitive control to inhibit prepotent response
Babies lack this control

Supporting Evidence:

Independent evidence that babies lack inhibitory control
Part of brain controlling certain behaviors not active yet

4.7.3. Simpson’s Illustration of Inhibition

Homer’s Task:

Does behavior A repeatedly
Stimulus moved
Continues doing A (can’t inhibit learned response)
"D’oh!" - realizes mistake but can’t stop

Application to Development:

May sum up much of developmental differences
Child does A, A, A
It’s moved
Child continues reaching for A despite seeing movement

Adele Diamond’s Research:

Kids reach for A (where object was)
But LOOK at B (where object is)
Suggests: They KNOW it’s at B
But can’t stop themselves from reaching to A
Knowledge present; inhibitory control absent

4.7.4. Mechanism 3: Learning - Some Things You Have to Learn

Domains of Learning:

Social world
Economic world
Political world
Physical world

Even Adults Don’t Know Everything:

4.7.5. McCloskey Study: College Students and Physics

Setup:

Hollow tube at top
Ball thrown through tube
Ball whips through and exits

Question:

What path does ball take after exiting?
Path A: Straight line (correct)
Path B: Curved path (incorrect)

Results at Yale:

Everybody gets it right

Results at Johns Hopkins:

50/50 split between A and B
Systematic biases
Incorrect physical intuitions

Twist - Water Version:

Ask: "What if you squirted water through tube?"
Nobody chooses B (curved path)
Everybody knows water continues in straight line

Interpretation:

When you have experience: Helps you out
Absence of experience: Kind of lost
Some physical knowledge requires learning from experience
Not all intuitions about physics are innate

Research Challenges:

Very hard to do research with newborns
Consent procedures
Logistical difficulties

Solution (Humorous):

"Most work done in France where they have no laws at all"
"Rush in when women give birth: 'We are psychologists!'"
"Do experiments on babies - it’s terrific"

4.8.2. Face Preference Study

Stimuli:

Face-like pattern
Scrambled facial features

Results:

Newborns prefer face-like pattern
Look longer at organized face

Interpretation:

Preference for faces in humans and other primates
Some innate face detection/preference

Andrew Meltzoff’s Research:

Advice:

"First thing you should do" with newborn baby
Stick face right up to baby
Stick your tongue out

Results:

Babies more often than not stick tongues out back
Suggests social connection between people
Early form of imitation

Later Development:

Babies become more sophisticated mimics
Will copy facial expressions of person next to them

Questions:

Nature of face preference
Nature of mimicry responses
How "smart" are these behaviors?

Current Status:

Matter of debate
Lot of ongoing research
Can we use physical world methods for social world?

4.9.1. Researchers

Paul Bloom (lecturer)
Valerie Kuhlmeier
Karen Wynn

4.9.2. Participants

9-month-olds
12-month-olds

4.9.3. Experimental Design

Setup:

Babies watch movies
One character helps a ball achieve goal
Another character hinders the ball

Research Question:

Will babies expect ball to approach helper vs. hinderer?

Methodology:

Babies see literal movie used in experiment
Extensive controls:
Square in one movie → triangle in another
Top position in one movie → bottom in another
Counterbalancing across conditions

4.9.4. Movie Content (Example)

Ball attempts to go up hill
One character (helper) pushes ball up
Other character (hinderer) pushes ball down
Repeated multiple times

4.9.5. Test Phase

Question:

Does baby expect ball to approach helper or hinderer?

Results:

Statistically: Babies look longer when ball approaches hinderer
Look less (expected event) when ball approaches helper

Interpretation:

Babies have social interpretation of events
See movie in terms of helping and hindering
Understand social valence of actions
Expect approach to helper, not hinderer

4.9.6. Follow-Up Research: Kiley Hamlin

Extended Prediction:

If babies understand helping/hindering
Babies should themselves prefer helper over hinderer

Method:

Show babies three-dimensional scenes (not just movies)
Present actual character objects
See which one baby reaches for

Methodological Detail:

Person offering choice is BLIND to study
"Blind" = technical term
Experimenter has no idea what baby saw
Point: Avoid intentional or unintentional influence
Can’t bias result because doesn’t know correct answer

4.9.7. Video Example

Baby watches helping/hindering scene
Experimenter (blind to condition) offers two characters
Baby reaches for one

Evidence:

Suggests some social understanding may be present from very start
Tentative evidence
Very controversial

4.10.1. The Paradox

Babies show some social understanding (helping/hindering studies)
BUT young children are very clueless about people in other ways
Not just babies - young children (3-4 years old)

4.10.2. Study 1: Deceptive Dolls Study

Setup:

Two dolls with different sized shoes
One doll: Big shoes
Other doll: Little shoes
Food gets stolen

Actual Thief:

Doll with little shoes stole food

Deception:

Big shoes placed at scene
Mother will see big shoes
Should think doll with big shoes stole food

Question to Child:

"Who will mother think stole the food?"

Correct Answer:

Mother will think doll with big shoes did it (based on evidence)

Children’s Response:

Point to doll with little shoes
Answer who REALLY stole food
Don’t understand mother will have false belief based on misleading evidence

4.10.3. Study 2: Mean Monkey Study

Setup:

Child wants stickers
Two types available (e.g., rocket ships, other design)
Mean monkey present

Rules:

Child points to which stickers they want
Mean monkey will take whatever child points to
Child gets the OTHER stickers

Correct Strategy:

Point to stickers you DON’T want
Mean monkey takes those
You get the ones you DO want

Results:

Young children repeatedly fail
Keep pointing to stickers they want
Mean monkey keeps taking them
Child gets undesired stickers
Doesn’t learn to point to other option

4.10.4. Age Pattern

Failure:

Three-year-olds fail
Young four-year-olds tend to fail

Success:

Around age 4-5, children succeed
Period around 4, 4.5 years: Transition from failure to success

4.11.1. Two Competing Theories

Theory 1: Knowledge Deficit (Psychologist’s Interpretation)

Position:

Children need to know more about minds
Don’t understand intent to deceive
Don’t comprehend that someone could choose maliciously
Lack theory of mind

For Deceptive Dolls:

Don’t understand mother will form belief based on evidence
Can’t represent false beliefs

For Mean Monkey:

Don’t understand strategic deception
Can’t plan to point to non-preferred option

Status:

This is possible
One respectable theory

Theory 2: Inhibition Problems (Alternative)

Position:

Children have right knowledge
Suffer from problems with inhibition
Can’t suppress prepotent responses

For Deceptive Dolls:

Task is "fairly difficult"
Children might get overwhelmed
When asked "who would mother think?" they respond with who REALLY did it
Some pull toward correct answer makes task difficult
Can’t inhibit knowledge of true state

For Mean Monkey:

Boy clearly wanted rocket ship stickers
When asked to point to what he wants
Just couldn’t help but point to what he wanted
Extra work required to lie was beyond him
Inhibiting true desire too difficult

4.11.2. Evidence for Inhibition Theory

Even Adults Find These Tasks Difficult:

Slower at tasks involving lying and deception
Make more mistakes on deception tasks
Compared to tasks not involving lying/deception

Implication:

Not just developmental limitation
Deception and strategic lying cognitively demanding even for adults
Suggests inhibition component, not just knowledge deficit

4.11.3. Status of Debate

Unresolved:

Not attempting to solve problem in this lecture
Raised as interesting area of debate
More coverage in:
Peter Gray textbook
Norton readings on development

4.12. Part 12: Modularity vs. General Development

4.12.1. Two Theoretical Positions

Piaget’s Position (and Freud’s):

General, across-the-board changes in how children think
Single developmental trajectory
Unified cognitive development

Alternative: Modular View

Developers:

Noam Chomsky
Jerry Fodor (philosopher of mind)

Core Claim:

Idea of child developing as single story is mistaken
Instead: Separate pre-wired systems for reasoning about world

Characteristics of Modules:

Separate systems for different domains
Each system has some built-in knowledge
Each must do some learning
Learning pattern varies from system to system
Separateness/independence between modules

4.12.2. Evidence for Modularity: Developmental Disorders

Key Principle:

If truly separate systems, should be able to damage one without damaging others
Selective impairment supports modularity

4.12.3. Case Study: Autism

Personal Note from Lecturer:

Why entered psychology
Started working with autistic children
Always found autism fascinating

Theoretical Significance:

Striking illustration of how social part of brain is distinct from other brain parts
Social module can be damaged while other modules intact

4.12.4. Autism: Basic Facts

Prevalence:

Strikes approximately 1 in 1000 people
Mostly boys (significant gender difference)

Dominant Problems:

Lack of social connectedness
Problems with language
Problems dealing with people

Simon Baron-Cohen’s Term:

"Mind blindness"

Pattern of Impairments:

NO impairments dealing with physical world
NO necessary impairments on:
Mathematical skills
Spatial skills
But: Lot of problems with people

4.12.5. Autism: Range of Severity

Severe:

Many autistic children have no language
Totally shut off from society

Higher Functioning:

Some learn language
Manage some sort of independent life
Nevertheless suffer from severe social impairment

Study 1: Simon Baron-Cohen - Chocolate Choice Task

Setup:

Show 3-4 year olds picture
Four chocolates arranged in row
Character "Charlie" in middle
Charlie looking at one particular chocolate

Question:

"Which chocolate will Charlie take?"

Typical Children’s Response:

Answer is "pretty clear"
The one Charlie’s looking at
Obvious that people’s interests align with gaze direction

Autistic Children’s Response:

Often just shrug
Say "How could I know?"
Don’t instinctively appreciate that:
People’s interests tend to align with where they’re looking
Gaze direction indicates desire/intention

4.12.7. Study 2: False Belief Task (Sally-Anne Task)

Frequency:

Done hundreds, perhaps thousands of times
Classic developmental psychology task

Setup:

Doll named Maxie puts ball in cupboard
Maxie leaves
Second doll enters
Second doll takes ball out of cupboard
Second doll puts ball under bed
Maxie returns

Question:

"Where will Maxie look for the ball?"

Two Types of Questions:

Physical World Question:

"Where IS the ball really?"
Answer: Under the bed
Everyone can solve this

Mental World Question:

"Where will Maxie LOOK for the ball?"
This is hard

Correct Answer:

Maxie will look in cupboard
Even though ball not really there
Because Maxie has false belief about world
Maxie doesn’t know ball was moved

4.12.8. Developmental Pattern for False Belief

2-3 Year Olds:

Find this difficult
Fail the task

4-5 Year Olds:

Able to pass task
Understand false beliefs

Normal Adults:

Able to pass task easily

Autistic Individuals:

Have serious problems
Often people with autism who are otherwise very high functioning will fail
Will say "He’ll check under the bed"
Can’t represent that someone else has different (false) belief

4.13. Part 13: Questions About Autism

4.13.1. Question 1: Relationship Between Deception Task and False Belief Task

Student Question:

How do deception task (shoes) and false belief task relate?

Answer:

Both designed to tap appreciation of false belief
Deception task: More complex
Can you understand mother might think it’s one person even though it’s really another?
Tests understanding of deception causing false belief
False belief task: Stripped-down version
Without "fanciness" of deception task
Tests exactly same underlying concept
Simpler, more direct test

4.13.2. Question 2: Why Mostly Boys?

Student Question:

Why does autism mostly affect boys?

Lecturer’s Answer:

"Nobody knows"
But there’s a theory that provides broader context

Simon Baron-Cohen’s Theory:

Claims:

Certain abilities more "sequestered" for males
Other abilities more "sequestered," focused on females

Specific Claim:

Social abilities tend to be more female than male

Provocative Formulation:

"To be a man is to suffer from very mild form of autism"

Autism as Extreme:

Autistic individuals suffer from "extreme male brains"
Logical consequence: More sampled from male population than female

Status:

Interesting, controversial theory
Will return to when discussing sex differences
Examine whether supported by evidence

4.13.3. Question 3: Severity of Autism and Developmental Stages

Student Question:

How think about severity of autism with regard to developmental stages?

Answer:

Sort of surprisingly: Autism can’t really be thought of that way

Key Point:

NOT like adult with autism is like 3-year-old or 2-year-old
In some ways, somebody with autism isn’t like any normally developing child at all

Not a Developmental Delay:

Not same as developmental delay
Different from certain forms of intellectual disability/retardation

BUT:

When assessing severity, DO look at things like language ability
In that sense, related to development

4.13.4. Question 4: Overcoming Autism

Student Question:

What are chances someone with autism can overcome deficiencies?

Answer:

"Autism is funny disorder"
Lot of media publication and presentation

Media Bias:

Often showcase very exceptional people
Example: Temple Grandin
Autistic woman
Wrote wonderful books about experience
But very unusual case

Reality for Majority:

Answer depends on:
How one defines autism
Whether include Asperger syndrome (limited, more mild syndrome)
Majority of people with autism have severe problems
At this stage, with current therapy level:
Will not lead normal life
Severe, persistent impairments

4.13.5. Question 5: Autistic Savants

Student Question:

More specifically about Rain Man
Are these exceptional abilities common?

Answer:

Rain Man Character:

Played by Dustin Hoffman
Had extraordinary mathematical abilities

Real Phenomenon:

Some people with autism have:
Extraordinary artistic abilities
Mathematical abilities
Musical abilities
"Amazing question why they have it"

Frequency:

Very small minority
Very rare

Significance:

Fascinating that happens at all
Severe damage in one area
Compensated with powerful skill in another
But: Most people with autism do NOT have exceptional abilities

4.14. Part 14: What Are the Modules?

4.14.1. Modules Discussed So Far

Two Primary Modules:

Physics Module:
- Understanding physical world
- Object permanence
- Physical causation
- Gravity, support
Social Module:
- Understanding people
- Intentions
- Desires
- Beliefs
- Social causation

4.14.2. Other Proposed Modules

Artifacts Module:

Special brain module for dealing with artifacts
Artifacts: Things like tables, chairs, cars, forks
Human-made objects
Distinct from natural objects

Sociology Module:

Dealing with human groups
Understanding:
Races
Classes
Social hierarchies

Intuitive Biology Module:

Common-sense biological understanding of world
Separate from understanding of people
Separate from understanding of physics

Most Dominant Proponent:

Frank Keil
Master of Morse College at Yale
Strongly defended notion of intuitive biological module

4.15. Part 15: General vs. Specific Development

4.15.1. Beyond Modular View

Possibility:

Might also be profound general differences between children and adults
Not just specific to particular domains
Not just:
How you think about objects
How you think about people
How you think about this or that
But rather: More general cognitive differences

4.15.2. Language as General Cognitive Transformation

Claim:

Very big difference between:
Creature without language
Creature with language

Part of Claim:

Learning a language
Learning to speak
Reconfigures human brain in exceptional way

Significance:

Really exceptional transformation
Has no parallel in any other species

Status:

Interesting claim
Will return to next class when discussing language

4.16. Part 16: Why Study Development If You’re Not Interested in Children?

4.16.1. Stephen Jay Gould’s Argument

Suppose You:

Hate development
Hate developmental psychology
Hate babies
Hate children
They’re not cute
They’re ugly
Don’t want to have them
Don’t want to study them
Annoyed we have to discuss them

Fine. BUT:

Still reasons to study development
Even if not interested in children per se

4.16.2. Developmental Science Can Inform Questions About Adults

Principle:

Sometimes developmental studies
Developmental data
Developmental science
Can answer questions about adult structures and functions

4.16.3. Stephen Jay Gould’s Example: The Zebra Question

Question:

Is zebra a black animal with white stripes?
Or white animal with black stripes?

Method Limitation:

Could look at adult zebras all day long
Never going to figure this out from adult observation

Solution:

Look at development
Watch embryological development of zebra
That’s how you would learn answer

Point:

Developmental analysis reveals structural truths
Can’t determine from adult form alone

4.16.4. Final Quote: D’Arcy Thompson

Source:

Famous biologist
Wrote "On Growth and Form"

Quote:

"Everything is the way it is because it got that way"

Significance:

Model for many developmental psychologists
Model for many evolutionary psychologists
Understanding current state requires understanding developmental/historical process

4.17. Key Terms and Concepts

4.17.1. Piagetian Concepts:

Genetic epistemology
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny
Assimilation
Accommodation
Schemas
Sensorimotor stage
Preoperational stage
Concrete operations
Formal operations
Object permanence
A-not-B task
Egocentrism
Conservation

4.17.2. Research Methods:

Habituation paradigm
Preferential looking
Surprise/violation of expectation
Looking time measures
Blind experimenter

4.17.3. Developmental Mechanisms:

Neural maturation
Pruning
Synaptic growth
Myelination
Inhibitory control

4.17.4. Modularity:

Domain-specific modules
Physics module
Social module
Theory of mind
Mind blindness
False belief task

4.17.5. Autism:

Prevalence (1 in 1000)
Social impairment
Preserved vs. impaired abilities
Autistic savants
Asperger syndrome
Extreme male brain theory

5. Lecture 6: Language: Structure and Acquisition

lugaru

5.1. Part 1: Introduction - Language as Battleground of Human Nature

5.1.1. Language’s Central Role in Understanding Human Nature

Why Language Matters: - Study of human language = battleground over theories of human nature - Every major thinker about people has had to address language

Historical Figures Who Addressed Language: - Aristotle - Plato - Hume - Locke - Freud - Skinner

Modern Approaches That Must Address Language: - Computational theory - Cognitive neuroscience - Evolutionary theory - Cultural psychology

Central Claim: - If you hope to make it with a theory of what people are and how people work, you HAVE to explain and talk about language

Dedicated Field: - Unlike most psychological topics, language has entire field devoted to its study - Linguistics: Entirely devoted to studying nuances and structures of different languages

5.1.2. Definitional Point: What Counts as Language?

Narrow Definition (Scientific Sense):

Systems like: - English - Dutch - Warlpiri - Italian - Turkish - Urdu - Various sign languages

Broader Possible Definition: - Could use "language" to describe what dogs do - What chimpanzees do - What birds do - Music ("musical language") - Art - Any communicative system

Why Narrow Definition Is Necessary:

Problem with Broad Definition: - If language refers to everything from English to traffic signals - Cannot find interesting generalizations - Cannot do good science - Becomes scientifically useless

Scientific Strategy: 1. Restrict to systems like English, Dutch, American Sign Language, Navajo 2. Make generalizations about language in this narrow sense 3. Then ask: To what extent do other systems (like animal communication) relate to this narrower definition? 4. After understanding narrow sense, can explore what other communicative systems share those properties

5.2. Part 2: Darwin’s Claim - Language as Instinct

5.2.1. Darwin’s Assertion

Quote:

"Man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children, while no child has an instinctive tendency to bake, brew or write."

Darwin’s Claim: - Language is special - Some sort of propensity, capacity, or instinct for language - Unlike other cultural activities (baking, brewing, writing) - Not everything comes natural to us - But language does come naturally

5.2.2. Evidence 1: Universality of Language

Basic Fact: - Every normal human society has language

Historical Evidence: - Course of traveling: Cultures encounter other cultures - Often encounter very different cultures - BUT: Through entire course of human history, nobody has ever encountered another group of humans that did not have a language

Does Universality Prove It’s Built In?

Not Necessarily - Alternative Explanation: - Could be cultural innovation - Language might be such a good idea that every culture comes across it and develops it independently

Analogy - Eating Utensils: - Just about every culture uses some sort of utensils to eat food with - Knife and fork - Chopsticks - Spoon - This probably NOT because use of eating utensils is human nature - Rather: It’s just very useful thing that cultures discover over and over again

5.2.3. Evidence 2: Pidgins and Creoles - Language Creation in Single Generation

Stronger Evidence: - Demonstrated case studies where language is created within a single generation - These case studies have happened over history

Standard Example: Slave Trade Context

Setup: - Slave trade revolving around tobacco, cotton, coffee, or sugar - Would mix slaves and laborers from different language backgrounds - Part of this mixing was deliberate: To avoid possibility of revolt

Result - Pidgin Development: - Enslaved people from different cultures would develop makeshift communication system - Could talk to one another - Called a "pidgin" (p-i-d-g-i-n)

Characteristics of Pidgin: - NOT a language - Strings of words borrowed from different languages around them - Put together in haphazard ways - No rich structure

Critical Question: - What happens to children raised in this society?

Expected Outcome: - Might expect children would come to speak pidgin

Actual Outcome: - They DON’T speak pidgin - In course of single generation, they develop their own language - They CREATE a language with: - Rich syntax - Rich morphology - Rich phonology

This New Language = Creole: - Languages we know now as creoles - Word refers back to their history - Means they were developed from pidgins

Significance: - Suggests ability to use, understand, and learn language is part of human nature - Doesn’t require extensive cultural history - Just about any normal child, even when not exposed to full-fledged language, can create a language

5.2.4. Evidence 3: Modern Case Studies - Nicaraguan Sign Language

Context: - Deaf children acquiring sign language - Adults teaching them are not versed in sign language - Adults are second-language learners struggling along

Expected Outcome: - Children would use whatever system their adults use

Actual Outcome: - They DON’T use adult system - They "creolize" it - Take makeshift communication system developed by adults - Turn it into full-blown language

Interpretation: - To some extent, it’s part of human nature to create languages

5.2.5. Evidence 4: Universal Acquisition in Normal Humans

Basic Facts:

Not Everyone Can Do Everything: - Not everybody in room can ride bicycle - Not everybody in room can play chess

But Everybody Has Language: - Every person possesses at least one language - Everybody started to possess at least one language when they were child

Exceptions: - Exist, but come about due to some sort of brain damage - Any neurologically normal human will come to possess a language

5.2.6. Evidence 5: Neurological Studies

Brain Specialization: - Dedicated parts of brain that work for language - Referred to in earlier chapters on brain

Consequences of Brain Damage: - If these parts of brain are damaged: Get language deficits - Aphasias: Might lose ability to understand or create language

5.2.7. Evidence 6: Genetic Basis (More Speculative)

Recent Work: - Studying genetic basis of language - Looking at genes directly responsible for capacity to learn and use language

Evidence: - Some unfortunate people have point mutations in these genes - Such people are unable to learn and use language

General Conclusion: - At very broad level, some support for claim that language is in some sense part of human nature

5.3.1. Creativity of Language (Descartes' Argument)

René Descartes' Philosophical Position: - We are more than merely machines - Best piece of evidence: Human capacity for language

Why Machines Couldn’t Have Language (According to Descartes): - Our capacity for language is unbounded and free - We could say anything we choose to say - We have free will

Productivity: - Language allows us to produce virtual infinity of sentences - We could create and understand sentences we never heard before

5.3.2. Number of Possible Sentences

Question: - How many grammatical sentences under twenty words in English?

Answer: - "A lot"

Implication: - Any theory of language use and language comprehension cannot simply appeal to a list - When you understand a sentence, you have to have capacity to understand sentence even if you’ve never heard it before

Novel Sentences: - We could effortlessly produce and understand sentences that no human has ever said before on earth

Examples of Novel Sentences:

"It’s surprisingly easy to get a purple tie on eBay if you don’t care much about quality."
"I am upset that one cannot easily download 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' through iTunes."

Key Point: - Possible nobody has said these sentences before - But you probably have not heard them - Yet you understand them immediately

Mechanism: - How do you do it? - You have rules in your head - You’ve learned what words mean - But you have abstract and unconscious rules that: - Take these words - Figure out the order - In fraction of second, give rise to understanding

This Is What Linguists Study

5.3.3. Examples of Unconscious Rules

Important Note: - Rules we’re talking about are NOT rules you explicitly know - They’re automatic rules - Same sort as visual perception rules - Implicit and unconscious - Not accessible to explicit understanding

Example 1: "Eager to Eat" vs. "Easy to Eat"

"The pig is eager to eat"
"The pig is easy to eat"

Immediate Understanding: - In fraction of second, you know there’s important difference - "The pig is eager to eat" = pig does the eating - "The pig is easy to eat" = pig is being eaten

Example 2: Pronoun Reference

"Bill knew that John liked him"

Possible Meanings: - Could mean: Bill knew that John liked Bill - Could mean: Bill knew that John liked Fred

Cannot Mean: - Cannot mean: Bill knew that John liked John

Natural Interpretation: - Bill knew that John liked Bill - The two words co-refer

Contrast: - "Bill knew that John liked himself" - Only has meaning: Bill knew that John liked John

Professional Linguistics: - "This is what linguists do for a living" - If this interests you: "You should become a linguist"

5.3.4. Three Structures of Language

Language Has Multiple Levels of Structure: - From bottom to top - All human languages have these

Three Core Structures:

Phonology: System of sounds or signs
Morphology: System of words or morphemes (basic units of meaning)
Syntax: Rules and principles that put together words and phrases into meaningful utterances

Source: - Discussion indebted to Steven Pinker’s excellent book "The Language Instinct" - Provides superb discussion of these phenomena - Many examples borrowed from Pinker

5.4. Part 4: Phonology - The System of Sounds

5.4.1. Basic Definition

Phonology: - The system of sounds that languages have

Setting Aside: - For moment, putting aside question of sign languages and how they work - Will return to sign languages later

5.4.2. Phonemes: Limited Set of Sounds

Finite List: - Finite list of possible sounds that language can use

English Example: - English has about forty phonemes

How It Works for Native English Speakers: - If you’re native monolingual speaker of English - You hear speech - Each sound you hear is categorized as falling into one of those forty phonemes

5.4.3. Example: English "L" and "R" Phonemes

English Distinction: - English has phoneme of "l" (/l/) - English has phoneme of "r" (/r/)

Result for English Speakers: - English speaker can hear difference between "lip" and "rip" - Corresponds to two different words in English

Other Languages: - Don’t have that distinction - Those distinctions very difficult for non-native English speakers to learn

5.4.4. Learning Phonemes

Part of Language Learning: - You have to learn the phonemes that your language has

5.4.5. Word Boundary Problem

Another Part of Learning: - Have to figure out what the boundaries are between words - Have to use sound signals to figure out boundaries between words

Seems Like Non-Problem for English Speakers: - If only language you’ve ever heard is English - Going to seem like really weird example of a problem - You’re listening to lecturer speak - Between each word you’re hearing a pause - Don’t have to be very smart to figure out where one word begins and ends

But: The Pause Is Psychological Illusion

Reality: - If you were to talk into oscilloscope that measured sound vibrations - There are NO pauses between words - Rather: Pauses are inserted by your mind - You already know where one word begins and another ends - You insert pause at that point

5.4.6. Demonstration: Foreign Language Without Pauses

French Example:

If You’ve Never Heard French: - When you hear somebody say "Je ne sais pas" - You could say: "Remarkable! French has no pauses between words"

French Speaker: - Of course hears: "Je ne sais pas" (with pauses)

Hebrew Example: - "Sleecha, eypho ha-sheeruteem" (request for bathroom) - If you don’t know Hebrew: No pauses

Truth About Demonstrations: - When each person gave their language demonstrations - Nobody spoke properly - Instead of sentence with pauses - All sounded like "blublublublublub" without any pauses - Because lecturer doesn’t know those languages

5.4.7. Children’s Challenge

Starting Point: - Children come into world without knowing any specific language - Have to learn pauses - Have to learn to interpret sounds in context

Result: - Sometimes they make mistakes - Get problems of segmentation

5.4.8. Segmentation Errors in Children

Can See Mistakes: - When children trying to repeat back something already known within society - Songs are good example

Example 1: - "I’ll never be your pizza burnin'" - Actual: "Beast of burden" (Rolling Stones)

Example 2: - "A girl with colitis goes by" - Actual: "A girl with kaleidoscope eyes" (Beatles)

Example 3: - "The ants are my friends; they’re blowin' in the wind" - Actual: "The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind" (Bob Dylan)

Example 4 (Religious): - "Our father with Bart in heaven; Harold be they name… Lead us not into Penn Station…" - Actual: "Our Father who art in heaven; Hallowed be thy name… Lead us not into temptation…"

5.4.9. Top-Down Processing in Phonological Understanding

Concept: - Phonological understanding illustrates aspects of language processing and consciousness - Typically, when you hear sentence: You manufacture in your mind gaps between words - When something unclear: You’ll fill in gap and figure out what word is - You’ll hear it that way

Best Examples: - When it goes wrong

5.4.10. Classic Example: "Super Freak" by Rick James

Setup: - Song by Rick James - Note: Lecturer mentions concern about copyright laws

The Ambiguous Line: - "The kind of girl you read about--" - What comes next?

Nobody Really Knows: - Sounds to many people (top-down interpretation) like: - "She’s the kind of girl you read about in Newsweek magazine"

Problem: - Makes no sense given context - "You don’t want to bring home to Mama" - Doesn’t fit

Actual Lyric: - According to song notes: - "The kind of girl you read about in new wave magazines"

Perceptual Effect: - Once you know this - When you listen again, you hear it that way

5.4.11. Top-Down Processing Defined

Definition: - When you know what something is, you hear it that way

Extremely Useful: - Comes to filling in gaps in sounds

Normal Conversation: - If speaker says "s-- entence" - You won’t hear "s-- entence" - Rather, you hear "sentence" - You fill in gap

5.4.12. Problems with Top-Down Processing

Personal Example: "Get Crunk"

Background: - Children (8 and 10 years old) asked to buy "Get Crunk" from iTunes - Lecturer aware song contains consistent refrain: - "Get crunk" [extremely bad word] "get crunk" [extremely bad word] - Lecturer said no

Clean Version: - Children said there’s clean version - Lecturer downloaded clean version

Problem: - Knowing what the word is means clean version is not very clean to lecturer - Top-down knowledge makes censored version still sound offensive

Note: - This IS the clean version - "Thank goodness they took away that obscene word"

5.4.13. Top-Down Processing: General Benefits

Summary: - Top-down processing affects how we hear things - Usually, almost always, for the better - What we know can clear things up

Preview: - This is theme we’ll return to next class with vision - How we see world is often confusing and befuddled - But what we know can clear things up - Same with sound

5.5. Part 5: Morphology - The System of Words

5.5.1. Definition

Phonology = Sounds Morphology = Words

5.5.2. Arbitrariness of the Sign (Ferdinand de Saussure)

Amazing Trick of Human Language: - Described by Ferdinand de Saussure (great linguist) - "The arbitrariness of the sign"

What It Means: - Can take any arbitrary idea in the world - Idea of chair - Story - Country - Make sound or sign to connect to it - Link is arbitrary

5.5.3. Limits and Flexibility of Arbitrary Naming

Some Partial Connections: - Might choose word for "dog" as "woof woof" (sounds like dog) - BUT: Can’t use word for "country" that sounds like country

Sign Language: - Could use sign for "drink" that looks sort of like act of drinking - BUT: Can’t use sign for "country" that looks like country - Can’t use sign for "idea" that looks like idea

Core Principle: - Languages work through arbitrary naming - Allows for map between: - Symbol (e.g., spoken word) - Any sort of thought we want to use

Result: - Those arbitrary mappings, as we learn them, make up vocabulary of language

5.5.4. Morphemes vs. Words

Talking About Words But: - More technical term is "morpheme"

Definition of Morpheme: - Smallest meaningful unit in a language

Often Same as Word: - "Dog" is a word - "Dog" is also a morpheme

But Not Always: - Single morphemes exist - Words composed of many morphemes also exist

5.5.5. Multi-Morpheme Words

Examples: - "Dogs" = one word, but two morphemes - "Complained" = one word, but two morphemes

What This Means: - Make word by putting together two morphemes

Implication: - To know what "dogs" means, you never had to learn the word "dogs" - All you had to know: - Word "dog" - Plural morpheme 's' - Could put them together to create word

5.5.6. Size of Vocabulary

Question: - How many morphemes does average speaker know?

Answer: - Fairly startling - Low-ball estimate: About 60,000 words - Proper estimate closer to: 80,000 or 100,000 words

What This Means: - If you average it out - Children start learning first words at about first year of life - They learn about nine new words a day

Pattern: - Not continuous nine words every day - Goes up and down depending on age - But still: Amount of words we know is staggering

5.5.7. Multilingual Speakers

Question for Class: - "How many of you know more than one language pretty fluently?"

Implication: - Those who know other languages might have: - 200,000 words in their heads - Or 300,000 words - Accessing them in fraction of second

Assessment: - Could legitimately be seen as one of most astonishing things that people do

5.6. Part 6: Syntax - Communicating Complicated Ideas

5.6.1. Building Blocks So Far

What We Have: - Sound system of language (phonology) - Words of language (morphology)

What That Gives: - "Dog," "cup," "chair," "house," "story," "idea"

Problem: - Won’t allow us to communicate complicated ideas

5.6.2. Definition and Purpose of Syntax

Syntax: - Refers to rules and principles that allow us to: - Combine words into phrases - Combine phrases into sentences

5.6.3. Another Neat Trick: "Infinite Use of Finite Media"

Defined by Wilhelm von Humboldt: - "The infinite use of finite media"

The Question: - Your vocabulary is finite - Just so many words - Have to learn them one by one - But: Could produce virtual infinity of sentences - How can you do that? - How go from finite list of symbols to infinite number of sentences?

The Answer: - You have a combinatorial system

5.6.4. Other Combinatorial Systems

Language Not Unique:

Music: - Has combinatorial system - Finite number of notes - Limitless number of musical compositions

DNA: - Has combinatorial system - Finite number of bases or amino acids - Could combine to possible infinity of DNA strings

5.6.5. The Infinity Mechanism: Recursion

Key Concept: - Many familiar with this from mathematics or computer science - Recursion

Can Be Illustrated Simply in Language

5.6.6. Simple Language Example

Very Simple Language: - Not actual language but close to how linguists describe normal languages

Vocabulary: - Three nouns: "Fred," "Barney," "Wilma" - Two verbs: "thinks," "likes"

One Rule: - How to read: You make sentence by taking: - Noun (any noun) - Putting verb after it - Following verb with noun

Example Sentence: - "Fred likes Wilma"

Question: - How many possible sentences are there?

5.6.7. Calculating Possible Sentences

Answer: - Eighteen sentences

The Sentences: - "Fred likes Fred" - "Fred likes Barney" - "Fred likes Wilma" - "Fred thinks Fred" - "Fred thinks Barney" - "Fred thinks Wilma" - And so on…

Pattern: - Three nouns - Followed by any of two verbs - Followed by any of three nouns - 3 × 2 × 3 = 18

Assessment: - Not very interesting language

5.6.8. More Complicated Language with Recursion

Same Vocabulary: - Same three nouns - Same two verbs - Same sentence structure as before

But Now: - One other sentence rule - This sentence expands to: - Noun followed by verb followed by SENTENCE

Key Feature: - One rule invoking another rule - Then you get recursion

Example: - "Fred thinks Barney likes Wilma"

Result: - Here you get potential infinity of sentences

5.6.9. Recursion in Everyday Language

Obviously Toy Example But: - Can see use of recursion in everyday life and language use

Examples:

Simple: - "John hates cheese"

Embedding Level 1: - "My roommate heard a rumor that John hates cheese"

Embedding Level 2: - "It disturbed Mary when I told her that my roommate heard a rumor that John hates cheese"

Embedding Level 3: - "I was amazed that it disturbed Mary when I told her that my roommate heard a rumor that John hates cheese"

Embedding Level 4: - "Professor Bloom had devoted way too much of his lecture talking about how I was amazed that it disturbed Mary when I told her that my roommate heard a rumor that John hates cheese"

Embedding Level 5: - "It really bothered me that--"

Key Point: - There’s no limit - There’s no longest sentence - Could keep producing sentence deeper and deeper embedded until you die - This is part of power of language

5.6.10. Complexity of Syntactic Rules

Important Point: - Syntactic rules are complicated

Puzzle: - Different rules can conspire to create same sentence

5.6.11. Ambiguity Example: Groucho Marx

Classic Line: - "I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. How it got into my pajamas I’ll never know."

Humor: - Revolves around ambiguity of rules that generate it - Two possible structures: - I [shot an elephant] [in my pajamas] - I [shot] [an elephant in my pajamas]

5.6.12. Poorly Thought-Out Headlines

Purpose: - To illustrate issues of ambiguity - People have collected newspaper headlines that inadvertently have ambiguity

Examples:

"Complaints about NBA referees growing ugly"
- Referees becoming ugly? Or complaints becoming ugly?
"Kids make nutritious snacks"
- Kids prepare snacks? Or kids ARE snacks?
"No one was injured in a blast which was attributed to the buildup of gas by one town official"
- Gas buildup caused blast? Or town official attributed blast to gas?
"General arrested for fondling privates"
- Fondling private parts? Or fondling private soldiers?
- (From Korea University visit)

5.6.13. Difficulty of Avoiding Ambiguity

General Problem: - Ambiguity is actually quite difficult to avoid in construction and understanding of sentences - One of ways it’s often difficult to write clearly

Legal Applications: - Whole sub-field of law involving: - Use of linguistic theory to disambiguate sentences - In Constitution - In legislation - In criminal cases

5.6.14. Serious Criminal Case Example

Background: - Several years ago - Very serious criminal case that rested on a sentence

The Situation:

Characters: - Two brothers (one retarded, one not) - Police officer

Events: 1. Brothers get into robbery 2. Police officer sees them and points gun at them 3. One brother points gun at police officer 4. Police officer shouts to non-retarded brother: "Give me the gun" 5. Retarded brother shouts: "Let him have it" 6. Brother shoots and kills police officer

Legal Question: - Brother who did shooting: Plainly a murderer - What about brother who shouted "Let him have it"?

Depends on Interpretation: - Sentence is beautifully ambiguous - Could mean: "Shoot him, let him have it" - Could mean: "Give him the gun, let him have it"

Trial Outcome: - Understanding was he was found guilty - A lot turned on ambiguity of sentence

5.7. Part 7: Question and Answer on Language Structure

5.7.1. Question 1: Syntax vs. Grammar

Student Question: - How does syntax differ from grammar or are they exactly the same?

Answer: - They’re exactly the same - Syntax is more technical term - But means same thing as grammar

5.7.2. Question 2: People Without Language Exposure

Student Question: - You said every normal human being born uses at some point some kind of language - Aren’t there people who weren’t born within culture and grew up and never really spoke language though physically normal?

Lecturer’s Clarification: - Glad question was asked - As said, realized statement wasn’t quite right

Revised Statement: - Said: Everybody who’s neurologically normal comes to acquire and learn language - But: What about people who are neurologically normal but don’t have language around them?

Historical Cases:

1. Children Raised by Animals: - Probably apocryphal stories - Children raised by wolves or dogs

2. Child Abuse Cases: - Horrible stories, some in twentieth century - Children locked away by insane or evil parents - Never learned to speak

3. Linguistic Isolates: - Deaf people within certain societies - Nobody signs to them - They themselves never learn to speak

What These Cases Tell Us: - Dramatic exception - Not enough to have brain for language - Somebody does have to use it with you

5.7.3. Counterexample: Deaf Children Creating Language

Interestingly: - Doesn’t have to be that many people

Susan Goldin-Meadow’s Research: - Studied deaf children that nobody signed to - BUT: Studied deaf children with deaf siblings - These children don’t just sit there - They create their own language

Characteristics: - Not full-blown language like: - American Sign Language - Langue des signes québécoise - But: It’s a language nonetheless - Has: Words, syntax, and phonology

5.7.4. Question 3: Inherent Limits to Grammar

Student Question: - Could it be argued there are inherent limits to grammar?

Answer: - Good question - Most linguists would argue "yes" - Languages are highly constrained in how they do things

Examples of Constraints:

No Language Has:
- Rule that constructs question by switching order of words around in sentence
No Language Has:
- Rule that says fifth word has to be verb

Universal Constraints: - Linguists have all these conditions - "No language in the world works this way"

Significance: - Constraints tell us what’s humanly natural language versus what’s not humanly natural language

But Notice: - Even if incredible constraints on grammars - Still: Could still produce infinite number of sentences - Like if you restrict to only subset of numbers (only odd numbers) - Still infinity of odd numbers

Conclusion: - Grammar can be restricted but still give rise to infinity of possible sentences

5.8. Part 8: Noam Chomsky and Language Acquisition

5.8.1. Chomsky’s Radical Claim

Background: - Met Chomsky when talked about behaviorism - Wrote "A Review of Verbal Behavior" - Linguist Noam Chomsky

The Radical Claim: - We shouldn’t view language learning as learning at all - Instead: Should view it as something similar to growth

5.8.2. Chomsky’s Argument (Quote)

Quote:

"No one would take seriously the proposal that a human organism learns through experience to have arms rather than wings, or that the basic structure of particular organs results from accidental experience. [Language] proves to be no less marvelous and intricate than these physical structures. Why, then, should we not study the acquisition of a cognitive structure like language more or less as we study some complex bodily organ?"

Implications:

You Might Learn: - To play baseball - About American Civil War

But If Chomsky Is Right: - You didn’t LEARN to speak English - Rather: What happened is you heard English - But capacity GREW in your head - Something lot more similar to development of: - Arms - Legs - Visual system

5.8.3. Should We Believe Chomsky?

Evidence for Environmental Influence:

Obviously: - Has to be some effect of environment shaping language

Why? - In order to know English: Have to have heard English - In order to know Dutch: Have to have learned and heard Dutch

And: - Languages differ in all ways we were talking about

5.8.4. Three Ways Languages Differ (Must Be Learned)

1. Phonology:

English: - Has distinction between 'l' and 'r'

Other Languages: - Do not have this distinction

2. Morphology:

Example: Word for Dog

English: - Referred to with morpheme "dog" - Historical accident of English

French: - "Chien"

Greek: - Something else

Each of 6,000 Languages: - Has different word - Vietnamese: This - Urdu: This - Czech: That

3. Syntax:

English: - Subject-verb-object language - To convey idea that Bill hit John, say: "Bill hit John"

But Not All Languages Work That Way: - In fact, majority of languages are actually subject-object-verb languages - Would say: "Bill John hit"

All of This: - Has to be learned - Has to be learned through exposure to language users

5.8.5. Evidence Supporting Chomsky’s Growth Model

On the Other Hand: - Considerable evidence that development of language skills, in some way, is similar to growth in way Chomsky suggests

5.9. Part 9: Basic Facts About Language Development

5.9.1. Fact 1: All Normal Children Learn Language

Universal Acquisition: - All normal children learn language

5.9.2. Fact 2: Specific Language Impairments Exist

Can Be Due to Trauma: - Aphasias - Trauma - Blow to head - Stroke can rid you of your language

Also Genetic Disorders: - Some falling under rubric of "specific language impairment" - Children born without same ability as rest of us to learn to speak

5.9.3. Significance of Specific Language Impairments

Why Interesting: - Illustrate something about human language

Reasonable Pre-Lecture Assumptions: - "All you need to have to learn language is to be smart" - "All you need to have to learn language is to want to communicate" - "All you need to have to learn language is to be social person wanting to/having ability to understand others and deal with others"

But: - Cases of specific language impairments suggest all of that is WRONG

Evidence: - There are children in this world right now who are: - Plenty smart - Really want to communicate - Entirely social creatures - But: They can’t learn language

Implication: - Ability to learn and understand language is to some extent separate from these other aspects of mental life

5.9.4. Fact 3: Language Learned Without Feedback or Training

Myth: - Many Americans believe they need to teach their children language

Huge Industry: - DVDs - Flash cards - All sorts of things designed to teach children language

Many Parents Believe: - If they didn’t persist in using these things, children would never learn to speak

But We Know That’s Not True:

5.9.5. Evidence from Cultures That Don’t Speak to Children

Communities Exist: - Where they don’t speak to their kids - Don’t believe it’s important to speak to kids

Linguist Interviews:

Linguists Would Ask: - "Why don’t you speak to your babies?"

Adults Would Respond: - "It’d be ridiculous to speak to a baby" - "Baby has nothing to say" - "You might as well just speak to your dog"

American Linguist Would Say: - "Yeah. We speak to our dogs."

Cultural Difference: - Americans and Europeans speak to everything and everybody - Other cultures more picky - Don’t talk to their children until children themselves are talking

Result: - Doesn’t seem to make much difference in language learning

5.9.6. Studies on Feedback

Motivated by: - Chomsky’s work - Chomsky’s critique of Skinner’s "Verbal Behavior"

Question: - What if we looked at children within United States? - Don’t these children get feedback?

Answer: - Yes and no

Average Highly Educated Western Parent: - DOES give children feedback based on what they say

But: - Don’t typically give feedback based on: - Syntax - Grammaticality of what they say

5.9.7. Classic Study: Brown and Hanlon (1970s)

Study: - Did all these studies looking at: - What children say - How parents responded

Findings: - Parents respond NOT to grammatical correctness - But TO: - Affect - Cuteness - Sociability of utterance

Example 1:

Child Says: - "I loves you, Mommy"

Unusual Parent Would Say: - "Oh, no. The verb agreement is mistaken" - "You’ve added a redundant 's.'" - "It’s not appropriate"

Typical Response: - Accept and appreciate message

Example 2:

Child Says: - "I hate your guts, Mother"

Unusual Mother Would Say: - "That’s wonderful" - "There’s a subject, verb, object" - "The whole thing’s structurally fine"

Typical Response: - Respond to negative message

5.9.8. General Pattern

We Respond: - To our kids like we respond to each other - Based on message that’s conveyed - NOT grammaticality of utterances

Children’s Mistakes: - Children make grammatical mistakes all the time - But then they go away - They go away WITHOUT correction

5.10. Part 10: Time Course of Language Acquisition

5.10.1. Very Early: Melody Preference (4 Days Old)

Studies Done in France: - With four-day-old babies

Method: - Used sucking method - Remember: Limited number of things babies can do - One thing: Suck

Procedure: - Babies would suck on pacifier to hear French - Would prefer to hear French than to hear Russian

Investigators' Claim: - Because they had been exposed to French in first four days of their lives

Reviewers Objected: - Mostly from France - "No. Maybe French just sounds better" - "Everybody’s going to like French"

So: - Re-did study in Russia - Russian kids sucked harder to hear Russian than French

What They’re Listening To: - Isn’t the words (don’t know words yet) - Don’t know syntax yet - It’s rhythm of language

For Adults: - French and Russian sound different - Even if you don’t know word of either language - They still sound different - Sound different to babies too

Baby Knowledge: - Baby being raised in France or Russia knows enough to tell: - What’s his language - What isn’t

5.10.2. Early On: Universal Phoneme Sensitivity

Children Sensitive to Every Phoneme: - Early on, children are sensitive to every phoneme there is

Example:

English-Speaking Babies: - Babies born in United States can distinguish between: - English phonemes like "lip" and "rip"

But Also: - Could distinguish between phonemic contrasts NOT exemplified in English - Such as phonemic contrasts in: - Czech - Hindi

5.10.3. Around 12 Months: Loss of Non-Native Phoneme Sensitivity

Goes Away: - Around twelve months of age

You Were Better as Baby: - This is one thing you were much better at when you were baby than you are now - When you were baby: Multilingual fool - Could understand sound differences of every language on earth

Now: - If you’re like lecturer: "Could barely understand English" - You narrow down until you’re sensitive just to language you hear

Timeline: - This narrowing down largely in place by about twelve months of age

5.10.4. Around 7 Months: Babbling

Sign Language Babbling: - Promised to return to issue of sign language - Going to show film - Very elegant series of experiments

Question: - Do babies who are exposed to sign language, babble?

Surprising Finding: - Over last 10-20 years in field - Acquisition of sign languages has turned out to be almost exactly the same - In fact, as far as we know: Exactly the same as acquisition of spoken languages

Didn’t Have to Be That Way: - Could have been just as reasonable to expect: - Advantage for speech over sign - Sign languages may be full-blown languages - But just take longer—harder to learn - Because brain and body adapted for speech

Turns Out: - This just isn’t the case - Sign and spoken languages: - Developmental milestones precisely the same - Start babbling at same point - Start using first words - First sentences - First complicated constructions

No Interesting Difference: - Between how brain comes to acquire and use: - Spoken language versus sign language

5.10.5. Around 12 Months: First Words

Children Start Using First Words: - Around twelve months of age

Characteristics: - Words for objects and actions - Like: "dog," "up," "milk"

Also: - Start showing some sensitivity to order of words - Know that "dog bites cat" is different from "cat bites dog"

5.10.6. Around 18 Months: Word Learning Acceleration

Start Learning Words Faster:

Also: - Start producing little, miniature sentences - Like: "Want cookie" or "Milk spill"

Function Morphemes Appear: - Little words: "in," "of," "a," "the" - Start to gradually appear

5.10.7. Around 7 Years Through Puberty: Critical Period

Then the Bad News:

Around Seven Years Going Up Through Puberty: - Ability to learn language starts to go away

5.10.8. Best Research on Critical Period

Researchers: - Elissa Newport - Sam Supalla

Study: - People who have been in United States for many, many years (30-40 years) - Seeing how well they have come to speak English

Key Finding: - Big determinant of how well you speak English as immigrant: - NOT how smart you are - NOT how many family members you have - NOT your motivation - It’s how old you were when you started

5.10.9. Critical Period Details

Timeline:

Start Learning Second Language Within First Few Years of Life: - You’re fine - You’ll speak like native

But Then: - Starts getting worse and worse

Once You Hit Puberty: - Suddenly huge variation in abilities to learn language - Very rare for somebody who learned English past puberty to speak without accent

Accent: - Very hard to shake - Not just accent - Also other aspects of: - Phonology - Syntax - Morphology

Metaphor: - Like part of brain responsible for language learning is only around early in development - If you don’t get your language by then, it’ll just run out

5.11. Key Terms and Concepts

5.11.1. General Language Concepts:

Pidgin
Creole
Linguistic isolates
Language universals
Productivity/creativity of language
Recursion
Combinatorial system
Critical period

5.11.2. Three Structures:

Phonology (system of sounds/phonemes)
Morphology (system of words/morphemes)
Syntax (grammar/rules for combining words)

5.11.3. Linguistic Phenomena:

Phoneme
Morpheme
Arbitrariness of the sign
"Infinite use of finite media"
Top-down processing
Segmentation errors
Ambiguity

5.11.4. Language Acquisition:

Specific language impairment
Aphasia
Universal phoneme sensitivity
Babbling
First words
Word learning acceleration
Function morphemes

5.11.5. Theoretical Positions:

Darwin’s instinct claim
Chomsky’s growth model (vs. learning model)
Language as part of human nature
Genetic basis of language
Neurological specialization for language

6. Lecture 7: Animal Communication, Perception, Attention, and Memory

lugaru

6.1. Introduction: Follow-ups from Previous Lecture

6.1.1. Follow-up 1: Language Preference Development

Question from Student: - When does preference for own language emerge in development?

Answer: - Studies on newborn babies - Pretty much moment they pop out: Favor their own language over other languages - Suggests: Listening while in utero (in the womb) to rhythms of their language - Developing preference before birth

6.1.2. Follow-up 2: "Let Him Have It" Case Resolution

Background: - Court case mentioned previously - Person said "Let him have it" when someone else pointing gun at police officer - Police officer was killed - Person charged with murder

Outcome: - Tried and found guilty for murder - Subsequently pardoned in 1988 - But: He was executed in 1957 - "Really nice except he was executed" - Made into a movie

6.2. Part 1: Review of Language Lecture

6.2.1. Topics Covered Previously

Universals of Language: - Properties shared across all languages

Detailed Aspects: - Phonology (sounds) - Morphology (words/morphemes) - Syntax (grammar)

Amazing Features: - Language uses arbitrary signs or sounds to convey concepts - Languages exploit combinatorial system including recursion - Puts together symbols into virtually limitless set of meaningful sentences

Development: - Developmental time course - Emergence of language from babies - Babies really good at learning language - Adults whose brains have "atrophied," whose language capacities are "dead"

6.3. Part 2: Animal Communication Systems

6.3.1. Central Questions

Now That We Know About Language: - Do animals possess same sort of language? - If not, can they learn it?

6.3.2. Basic Facts About Animal Communication

No Doubt: - Nonhuman animals possess communication systems - Known forever - Not matter of controversy

Definitional Issue:

If "Language" Means "Communication": - Answer is obviously "yes" - Dogs, bees, and monkeys have language

If "Language" in Technical, Narrow Sense: - As anything with properties discussed earlier - Using English, ASL, Spanish as background - Answer’s almost certainly "no"

6.3.3. Three Categories of Animal Communication Systems

Category 1: Finite List of Calls

Example: Vervet Monkeys - Small list of calls - Convey different warnings - "Attack from a snake" - "Attack from a leopard"

Category 2: Continuous Analog Signal

Example: Bee Dance - Communicates location of food sources - Doesn’t do it in syntactically structured way - Rather: Intensity of dance corresponds to richness of food source

Category 3: Random Variation on a Theme

Example: Birdsong

6.3.4. What Animal Communication Systems Lack

Don’t Find in Any Real Sense: - Phonology - Morphology - Syntax - Combinatorial systems - Arbitrary names

Status: - This much is not particularly controversial

6.4. Part 3: Trained Primates - Controversial Cases

6.4.1. Famous Cases

Examples: - Kanzi - Nim Chimpsky - Other famous primates seen on Discovery Channel and other venues

Status: - Fairly controversial

6.4.2. Critique of Textbook Treatment

Gray Textbook: - Nothing particularly inaccurate - But: Lecturer thinks Gray "a little bit too credulous, too believing" - Too accepting of claims about abilities of animals

6.4.3. Scientific Arguments Against Primate Language Claims

Argument 1: Very Few Words Learned

If Can Be Said to Learn Words at All: - Learn very few of them - Takes extensive years of training to learn - Unlike normally developing child: - Could learn word in a day - Could learn word in an hour

Argument 2: Limited Order

Utterances: - Often have order - But: Order tends to be very limited - Lacks recursive properties - In fact, lack of recursion is not controversial

Argument 3: Extreme Repetitiveness

Utterances of Trained Chimpanzees: - Extremely repetitive

What You See on TV: - Sort of sampling - Sampling could often be very impressive

But If You Take Random Utterances: - Tends to look very different

Typical Chimpanzee Utterances (Taken at Random):

"Nim eat, Nim eat.
Drink, eat, me Nim.
Me gum, me gum.
Tickle me, Nim play.
Me eat, me eat.
Me banana, you banana, me you give.
Banana me, me eat.
Give orange, me give, eat orange, me eat orange."

Lila Gleitman’s Comment: - If any normally developing child spoke like this - Parents would rush him screaming to neurologist

6.4.4. Broader Question: Why Expect Chimps to Learn Human Language?

General Principle: - We don’t normally expect one species to have capacities associated with another species

Examples:

Bats: - Use echolocation to get around - No active research program seeing if cats can use echolocation

Birds: - Navigate by stars - No research program seeing if dogs could navigate by stars

6.4.5. Bad Ideas About Language That Cause Confusion

Bad Idea 1: Chimps Are Smart, Therefore Should Use Language

Response: - They ARE smart - But we know that smart isn’t enough

Evidence: - Human capacity for language is not totally result of smartness - There are smart children who, due to deficit in language capacity: - Don’t speak - Don’t understand language - Smartness of chimpanzees does not in itself demonstrate they should be able to learn language

Bad Idea 2: Chimps Are Our Nearest Evolutionary Relatives

Correct Part: - This is right - One would expect, on face of it, not unreasonable to expect us to share lot of abilities with them

On the Other Hand: - We split from them long time ago - Plainly humans are different from chimps - Five million years either way - That’s more than enough time for language capacity to evolve

6.4.6. Value of Studying Animal Communication

None of This Is to Say: - Study of nonhuman communication systems isn’t interesting

Lecturer’s Personal Opinion:

Misguided Approaches: - Study of attempts to teach chimpanzees, gibbons, or gorillas a human language like ASL are misguided - Would be as if team of monkeys kidnapped human child and tried to train him how to hoot like monkey - Might be enjoyable - But: Does not seem to give us any rich insights

More Interesting Approach: - Study of animal communication systems in the wild - There’s linguistics of human language that has delineated principles underlying all human languages - Would be extraordinarily interesting to attempt same linguistic program to other communication systems used in wild - Such as: - Cries of vervet monkeys - Bee dance

6.5. Part 4: Topics Not Covered in Language Section

6.5.1. Introduction to Omitted Topics

Problem: - Intro Psych course: Have to whip through lot of topics very fast

If You Took Course Focused Directly on Language: - Would learn more about various topics

6.5.2. Topic 1: Language in the Brain

Coverage: - Touched on very briefly in textbook - Has large literature associated with it

6.5.3. Topic 2: Language Disorders

Examples: - Aphasias - Specific language impairment - Dyslexia

6.5.4. Topic 3: Language Perception and Production

Question: - How is it that we do amazing feat of understanding and producing words in fraction of second? - Where does that ability come from?

6.5.5. Topic 4: Reading

In Many Ways Different from Language:

Darwin’s Distinction: - Described language as instinct - Carefully distinguished it from other things that don’t come natural to us - Including reading

Facts About Reading: - Reading is difficult - Reading is cultural invention - Not every human has it - Unlike language: Reading is acquired with tremendous difficulty over many years

On the Other Hand: - Reading plainly intersects with language - New way of conveying language - Moving out from speech to writing - Psychology and neuroscience of reading thus very interesting

6.5.6. Topic 5: Bilingualism and Multilingualism

Questions of Interest:

For People in This Room: - Does it matter for how well you learn language whether you’re learning one, two, three, or four? - How does multilingual encode all these different languages inside single brain? - And so on

6.5.7. Topic 6: Relationship Between Language and Thought

Status: - Very hot issue - Few years ago: Lecturer taught entire seminar called "Language and Thought" devoted to this question

Cool Question: - Can break up into two very general questions

Question 1: Is Language Necessary for Abstract Thought?

One Way to Answer: - Look at creatures without language - Like babies and chimpanzees - See how smart they are

Two Possible Outcomes:

If Very Smart: - Would suggest you don’t need language for abstract thought

If Certain Cognitive Limitations: - Would suggest language is essential for abstract thought

Question 2: Does Language Structure Affect Thinking?

Question: - Even once you know language - Do structural properties of language you know affect way you think?

This Claim Sometimes Described As: - Linguistic relativity - Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

Example Research: - Looking at speakers of different languages - Such as English versus Korean - Seeing whether structural differences in these languages affect how you think

Coverage: - Some of this work discussed in readings - Gray textbook - Selections from The Norton Anthology - Makes up reading response - Have to address this question and take best shot at answering it

6.6. Part 5: Question and Answer on Language

6.6.1. Question 1: Individual Differences in Language Learning

Student Question: - Some people learn languages easier than others - How do we explain this?

Answer:

Can Ask Question Two Ways:

1. First Language Learning: - Some children learn language very quickly - Some are very slow

2. Second Language Learning: - Some breezing through second language requirement at Yale - Others struggling and miserable - Considerable variation

Einstein Story:

Background: - Very slow to learn language - Didn’t speak at all until he was four

The Story: - First words: All of sudden having supper with parents - Put down spoon - Said: "The soup is too hot" - Parents stared in astonishment - Said: "You’ve never spoken before" - He said: "Well, up to now everything’s been fine"

Note: It’s not a true story

Why Differences Exist: - Nobody really knows - Surprisingly hard

Known Factors:

Slight Advantage for Being Female: - Girls slightly more advanced in language than boys - But: Not a big one - Need hundred people to just see it statistically

Big Genetic Factor: - If your parents learned language quickly and learned other languages quickly - You are more likely to

Understanding of Brain Bases: - Brain bases of these differences - Cognitive bases - Social bases - Largely open question

6.6.2. Question 2: Children Exposed to Multiple Languages

Student Question: - What happens when parents [speak different languages]?

Answer:

Context: - Actually more the norm around world than situation in United States - US: Kids exposed to single language

What Happens: - Children learn both languages

How They Do It: - Children very good (as adults are) at distinguishing different languages on basis of: - Sound system - Rhythms - Don’t typically confuse them - Then: Just learn more than one language

Status: - Actually more the average state of affairs around world

6.6.3. Question 3: Hemispheric Specialization for Language

Student Question: - You said people who are right-handed learn languages [in left hemisphere]

Answer:

Admission: - Don’t have much more to say than what said before - Agrees this is deeply unsatisfying

Right-Handed People: - Language probably in left side of brain

Left-Handed People:

Question to Class: - "How many people here are left-handed?"

For Left-Handers: - We don’t know - It varies - Some: Have it in left side - Some: Have it in right side - Some: Kind of diffuse

Deeper Questions: - Why is this? - In fact, why are some people right-handed and others left-handed in first place? - These are really good questions [but we don’t have answers]

6.6.4. Question 4: Does Learning Multiple Languages Slow Each One Down?

Student Question: - Does learning more than one language cause you to learn them slower than just learning one language?

Intuitive Reasoning: - Would stand to reason that it would - There’s finite amount of mental resources - If just learning English: Use all of it for English - If learning English and Spanish: Got to split - Would expect each to be learned slower

Surprising Finding: - Common-sense view does not appear to be true - Children learning more than one language seem to show no deficit in each of their languages - Relative to child learning just one language

In Other Words: - If I am just learning English (kid) - You’re learning English and Spanish (kid) - You’ll reach milestones in English same time I will - Your extra learning of Spanish doesn’t seem to affect you - Doesn’t seem to be any detriment for learning multiple languages

Related Question: - "Is there any cognitive deficit?" - Some people have argued learning multiple languages sometimes harms children in certain ways - Claim made in Quebec, for instance - Over debate over how children should be taught English and French

Evidence: - Does not appear to be case - As far as we know: No downside to learning many languages when you’re young

6.7. Part 6: Introduction to Perception, Attention, and Memory

6.7.1. Why Treat Together?

Putting Them Together: - Instead of treating as separate lectures - There’s sense in which they’re the same story

6.7.2. The Common Story

Example Scenario:

You See a Scene: - See this scene - You’re looking at it - You’re perceiving it - Coming through your eyes - You’re interpreting it - You see something - See man and house

If Shut Your Eyes: - Could still hold that scene in memory

Week Later: - If asked: "What season was it?" - You would do pretty well

This Is the Story: - How we do this

6.7.3. Series of Claims to Be Made

For Perception: - First persuade you: Problem of perception is hard - Successful perception involves educated and unconscious guesses about world

For Attention: - We attend to some things and not others - We miss surprising amount of what happens in world

For Memory: - Many types of memory - Key to memory is organization and understanding - You can’t trust some of your memories

6.7.4. Memory Example: 9/11

Question to Class: - "How many of you remember where you were at 9/11?"

Claim: - Many of you are wrong - Will never persuade you of this because you have certain memories

Everyone Has Story: - Could tell story where they were when towers went down

Clever Psychologists' Study:

September 12: - Said: "Let’s do a study" - Asked people: "Where were you yesterday when you heard the news?" - They told them

Later: - Went back to them year later, two years later - Said: "Tell me about what happened September 11" - They said: "I remember totally where I was. I have a very--" - Often story was wrong

General Pattern: - Lot like that which we’re going to talk about

6.7.5. Biggest Moral

Central Claim (in Really Big Print): - We are often wrong about our experiences - Both of the present and of right now

6.8. Part 7: Perception - The Problem Is Hard

6.8.1. Marvin Minsky Story

Background: - Lecturer went to graduate school at MIT - Story about Marvin Minsky (A.I. guru)

Marvin Minsky: - If you’ve heard phrase "artificial intelligence" – that was him - If you heard claim "people are nothing more than machines made of meat" – also him

The Story:

Robotics Work: - Doing work on robotics - Interested in building robot that could do all sorts of cool things

Robot Requirements: - Had to see the world - Had to be able to: - Pick up things - Recognize people - See chairs - Navigate its way

Minsky’s Assessment: - "That’s tough problem" - "Going to take graduate student whole summer to figure it out" - Assigned it to graduate student for summer project

6.8.2. Why Visual Psychologists Love This Story

Computer Vision and Robotics Vision: - Attempts to make machines that can identify and recognize objects - Has been profound failure

Current State: - At this point, no machine on earth could recognize people and objects and things - At level of really dumb one-year-old

Reason: - Much harder problem than anybody could have expected

6.8.3. Why Is It Such a Hard Problem?

Naive Approach: - Might think it’s easy problem - "Okay, we have to figure out problem of how people see" - "Here’s what we do" - You’re over there, here’s your eye - Somehow has to get to television monitor - Then you look at it - That’ll solve problem of how you see

Naive Observations: - "Eye flips things upside down" - "Guess this guy is going to have to get used to looking at things upside down" - "That’s an interesting problem"

Problem with This Approach: - Not the way to look at it - Doesn’t answer any questions - Just pushes question back - Fine. How does "he" see? - Not answering anything

6.8.4. Terminator Example

Terminator’s View: - Has all these numbers shooting out - Well: He has to read the numbers - He has to see this

Note: iTunes screenshot inadvertently shown

6.8.5. Right Way to Think About Perception

The Eye: - Very ugly and bloody - Around here: Have the retina

The Retina: - Bunch of nerve cells - Nerve cells fire for some stimulus and not others - From array of firings: "firing… not firing… firing… not firing…" - Have to figure out what the world is

Better View: - Firings of neurons could be viewed as array of numbers - Have to figure out how to get from numbers to: - Objects and people - Actions - Events

That’s the Problem

6.8.6. The Fundamental Problem: 2D to 3D

Made Particularly Difficult: - Retina is two-dimensional surface - Have to infer 3D world from two-dimensional surface

From Mathematical Point of View: - Impossible

What This Means: - For any two-dimensional image - There is indefinite number of three-dimensional images that correspond to it

Example:

Suppose You Have This on Retina: - Array of light shaped like [certain shape]

What Does That Correspond to in World? - Could correspond to thing just like that you’re looking for - Or: Could correspond to square that’s tilted backwards - Have to figure out which is which

6.8.7. Solution: Unconscious Assumptions

Way We Solve This Problem: - We have unconscious assumptions about how world works - Our minds contain certain assumptions about how things should be - Enable us to make educated guesses - From two-dimensional array to three-dimensional world

Note About Slides: - Purposefully did not make slides available for this class ahead of time - Don’t want people to cheat - Several points where you could look at slides and confirm things lecturer says are actually true - Want to give three examples: 1. Color 2. Objects 3. Depth

6.9. Part 8: Example 1 - Color and Brightness

6.9.1. The Basic Problem

Question: - How do you tell lump of coal from snowball?

Images Shown: - Lump of coal - Snowball - From Google images

Initial Answer: - How do you know which is which? - Lump of coal is black - Snowball is white

How Do You Know? - Maybe have on retina: Retina responds to sort of color that hits it - Oversimplified, but assume this is true - This is black coming out - That’s white - That’s how you tell

6.9.2. Why This Can’t Be Right

Problem: - Objects' color is not merely matter of what material they’re made of - But: Amount of light that hits it

Example: - As lecturer walks across stage - Falls into shadow and light - None of you screams: "Professor Bloom is changing colors!"

What You Do: - Automatically factor out change in illumination as this is happening

6.9.3. Demonstration: Checker Shadow Illusion

Display: - See this display - Take look at those two blocks

Question: - You see this one as lighter than that one? - You do

Might Imagine: - This is because this strip is lighter than this

But It Isn’t: - They’re the same

Proof: - Won’t believe until actually print it out and take look - But: In fact the same - Will show you

Could Say: - "I’m tricking you" - But: This is the way it works

Close-Up: - Remember: Comparing this and this - Now: Take away other parts of environment - You’ll see they’re the same

Objection: - "But hold it. This can’t be same as this"

Answer Goes Like This: - We know shadows make surfaces darker - Don’t know this like "Here’s something I know" - Rather: Know this in that it’s wired up in our brains - When we see surface in shadow: Automatically assume it’s lighter than it looks - We see it as lighter

Can Show This: - By removing cues to shadow - You see it as it really is

Illustration: - Information to your eyes is just one bit of information - Degree of light coming from single source is one bit of information - You use to calculate certain assumptions - Come to conclusion

6.10. Part 9: Example 2 - Objects

6.10.1. The Segmentation Problem

Scene: - You see this - Automatically and intuitively segment it into different objects - Segment it into: - Man - House - Birds - Trees

Question: - How do you do this?

Turns Out: - To program computer to segment scene into different objects is hugely difficult - Question of how we do it is, to some extent, unknown

6.10.2. Gestalt Principles

One Answer: - There are certain cues in environment that are signals you’re dealing with different objects - These cues often described as Gestalt principles

Principle 1: Proximity

Rule: - When you see things close to each other - More likely than not to assume they belong to same thing

Principle 2: Similarity

Display: - Could correspond to indefinite number of objects - But: Naturally tend to see it as two - Do one with one texture pattern - Other with other texture pattern

Principle 3: Closure

Fact: - This is closed square here - Suggests it’s single object

Principle 4: Good Continuation

Could Judge: - Could just as well be two shapes: - One that runs from A to C - Other one that runs from D to B

But Don’t Tend to See It That Way: - Rather: Tend to see it as: - One that runs from A to B - Other one that runs from C to D

Principle 5: Common Movement

Rule: - If things move together - They’re single object

Principle 6: Good Form

Example: - You see object over there - In absence of any other information - Might be tempted to say: That’s single thing, plus sign maybe

Versus: - This [different shape] - Because has lousy form - More tempted to say: It’s two things, one thing lying on top of each other

6.10.3. Nature of These Cues

Characteristics: - These are sort of cues, expectations - None of them are right - Cases where they could all fool you

But: - Useful cues that guide our parceling of world - Our segmenting of world into distinct objects

6.10.4. When Cues Fool You

Illusory Triangle: - Might think, if you’re suggestible - There is triangle here - Case where certain cues driving you to think there’s triangle here - However: No triangle here - If you cover up these little Pacmen - Triangle goes away

Illusory Square: - Similarly: No square in middle - No square - "It’s very Matrix" - These are illusions - Because these are cues that there should be square there - The regularity of form

6.11. Part 10: Example 3 - Depth

6.11.1. The Depth Perception Problem

What You See: - See this - Don’t—See it on one level as flat thing - Another level: You look inside picture - See, for instance: Man is in front of house

You Look at Lecturer: - See podium - If have terrible neurological disorder: - See strange creature that’s half podium - Leading on to chest - Up to head - Top of him is wiggling - Podium staying still

If Neurologically Normal: - See man walking back and forth behind podium

6.11.2. Why This Is Really a Problem

Technical Reason: - Vision is hard

Crudely: - Got two-dimensional retina - Have to figure out three-dimensional world - How do you do it?

Answer Once Again: - Assumptions or cues - Certain assumptions visual system makes - Aren’t always right - In fact: In cases of visual illusions, can be wrong - But: Will guide you to perceive world in correct and accurate way

6.11.3. Depth Cues

Cue 1: Binocular Disparity

Interesting One: - Only depth cue that involves two eyes

How It Works: - If look at you pretty close - Image get here and image get here are somewhat different - Or: Have to focus eyes together to get same image - If look at you in back - They’re almost identical - Because: Further away, given two eyes that are static, closer images look

Mechanism: - Not that you say to yourself: "Oh. Back there an orange. Same image in right eye and left eye. You must be far away" - Rather: Unconsciously and automatically make estimations - On how far people are in depth - Based on binocular disparity

Cue 2: Interposition

Question: - How do you know lecturer is in front of podium and podium’s not in front of lecturer? - [Humorous aside: "From where I’m standing it’s right"] - How do you know podium is in front of lecturer?

Answer: - Because lecturer walking here - Then it cuts into him - Unless going through grotesque metamorphosis - What’s happening: Makes sense to say moving behind podium - Interposition

Example with Guy and House: - How do you know guy standing in front of house? - Because: You see all of him - He’s blocking lot of house

Cue 3: Relative Size

Question: - How far away am I?

If Had to Estimate: - Part of way you’ll figure that out - You know how tall human’s supposed to be

Counterfactual: - If you thought lecturer was fifty feet tall - Would assume lecturer is further away than he is

General Principle: - Your judgments on size dictate your judgments about distance

Usually: - This cue isn’t necessary

But: - If you look at Empire State Building - If you go into field and see tower - Your judgment of how far away tower’s going to be - Depends on your knowledge of how tall tower should be - If it’s this tall: You say "Oh, it must be--" - Then you’d be surprised

Cue 4: Texture Gradient

Will Explain:

Remember Problem: - How do you know if that thing is this object or object in and of itself?

Answer: - Things with textures will show themselves - Because textures will get smaller from distance

Logically: - Could still be single thing standing upright - With just dots going up smaller

Natural Assumption: - Reason why dots recede in this regular fashion - Is because it’s receding in depth

Cue 5: Linear Perspective

Rule: - Parallel lines tend to recede in distance

6.11.4. Classic Illusions

Mueller-Lyer Illusion

Perception: - People will see this as longer than this - It’s not

Proof: - If don’t believe: Print it out and measure it

Ponzo Illusion

Perception: - People see this one as longer than this - Again: It’s not - Get illusions named after you when you discover these

6.11.5. Explanation of Illusions

Mueller-Lyer:

What’s Going On: - Top line looks longer even though it isn’t

Explanation: - These other lines in scene cause visual system to make guesses about distance - Then you correct for distance by making assumptions about size

General Principle: - If have two lines - Take up same amount of space on retina - But you believe one is 100 feet away and other’s 50 feet away - The one that’s 100 feet away: You will see as bigger - Because brain says: "Well, if it takes up just this much space but it’s further away, it must be bigger than something that’s closer and takes up that much space"

That’s What Goes On: - For top line, for Mueller-Lyer illusion - We assume this is further away - This is closer - Based on cues to distance - Cue is factored in - Because we assume this is further away - We assume it must be bigger to take up same space as this which is closer

Ponzo Illusion: - Linear perspective - Parallel lines tend to recede in distance - If this top one is further away than this - But they take up same size in your eye - This one must be bigger - You see it as bigger

Book Offers More Details: - On how these illusions work

6.11.6. Final Illusion: Shepard Tables

Developer: - Roger Shepard

Description: - Called Shepard tables - Look like two tables

Question: - "Which of these tables would be easier to get through door if you have thin door?"

People’s Response: - Would say one on left - This one looks sort of thicker and harder to get through - This one looks longer and leaner

Fact: - They’re same size

What This Means: - This [one dimension] is exactly same as this [other dimension]

Proof:

Demonstration: - Took lecturer about seven hours to do on computer - Nobody’s going to believe because could have faked it - But: Can print it out and do yourself - Take piece of paper, put on here - Then move it - Same

Reaction: - Showed it to somebody - They called lecturer a liar

Can Do Yourself: - In privacy of own home or study

But What Lecturer Really Wants: - After you do it, say: "Okay. Fine. Why does this one look longer and thinner than this one?" - Answer is same answer that will explain: - Mueller-Lyer illusion - Ponzo illusion - Having to do with: - Cues to depth - Way your mind corrects perception of depth

6.12. Part 11: Attention and Memory - Introduction

6.12.1. Why Treat Together

We Are Fascinated with Memory: - Particularly interesting when memory goes wrong - Particularly fascinating what happens in cases of amnesia

6.12.2. Amnesia Demonstration

Needs Volunteer: - Willing to do little bit of acting

Scenario 1:

Lecturer: - "Pretend you have amnesia. What’s your name?"

Student: - "I don’t know"

Lecturer’s Response: - "Perfect. Glad you said that" - "That’s wrong answer" - "Because you don’t have total amnesia" - "You still remember English"

Scenario 2:

Second Volunteer:

Lecturer: - "What’s your name?"

Observation: - Looks puzzled - But still maintains bowel and bladder control - So hasn’t forgotten everything

Point: - "I always lose the third volunteer in that demo"

6.12.3. Memory Is Hugely Broad Concept

What’s Included:

Autobiographical Memory: - What we standardly think

Perfectly Rational Response: - When say somebody’s losing their memory - "Oh, I have movie about somebody losing their memory" - Don’t imagine person in diapers - Imagine person: - Walking around - Having sex with cool people - Saying "Where am I?"

What You Imagine: - Losing autobiographical memory - Sense of self

But of Course: - Knowing English is part of your memory - Knowing how to stand - Knowing how to chew and swallow - All things you’ve learned - That have been molded by experience

6.13. Part 12: Types of Amnesia

6.13.1. Two Broad Types

Often Run Together:

Type 1: Retrograde Amnesia - Lose memory of past - "The Matt Damon amnesia"

Type 2: Anterograde Amnesia - Lose ability to form new memories

6.13.2. Case Study: Man Who Can’t Form New Memories

Film of Man with This Problem:

Background: - World-renowned choir director - Suffered viral encephalitis - Led to brain damage - Destroyed: - Most of temporal lobes - Hippocampus - Lot of left frontal lobe

Could Have Been Worse: - Retains ability to talk - Not intellectually impaired

The Problem: - Just can’t form new memories - Lives in perpetual "now" - Nothing affects him - Feels continually reborn at every moment

Note: - Not always happens like this - More than one of these cases - Doesn’t always happen like this

6.14. Part 13: Basic Distinctions in Memory

6.14.1. Three Main Types

Crudely: - Can make distinction between: 1. Sensory memory 2. Short-term memory (also known as working memory) 3. Long-term memory

6.14.2. Sensory Memory

Definition: - Residue in your senses

Example: - Flash of lightning - Might see afterimage - That afterimage is your sensory memory

Echoic Memory: - Somewhat longer echoic memory for sounds - As somebody talking to you - Even if not paying attention - Will store few seconds of what they’re saying

Practical Application: - Sometimes: Somebody talking to you - You’re not listening - They say: "You’re not listening to me" - You say: "No. You were talking about--" - Pick up last couple seconds from echoic memory

6.14.3. Short-Term Memory

Question: - "Anybody remember what I just said?"

If You Did: - That’s short-term memory

Duration: - Spans for few minutes

6.14.4. Long-Term Memory

Questions: - "Anybody know who Elvis is?" - "Do you know your name?" - "Do you know where you live?"

Characteristics: - Long-term memory store that you walk around with - Not going to lose right away

6.14.5. When Think About Amnesia in Movie Sense

Standard Conception: - Think of certain loss of long-term memory - Associated with autobiographical personal events

6.15. Part 14: More Memory Distinctions

6.15.1. Implicit vs. Explicit Memory

Will Talk in More Detail:

Explicit (Crudely): - What you have conscious access to - Example: What you had for dinner last night - Could think back and say: "I had this for dinner last night"

Implicit: - More unconscious - Examples: - What certain word means - What word "had" means - How to walk - How to ride bicycle - Might not be able to articulate - Might not even be conscious of - But still have access to

6.15.2. Semantic vs. Episodic Memory

Semantic Memory: - Basically facts - What word means - What’s capital of Canada - And so on

Episodic: - Autobiography - What happened to you

Examples:

Semantic: - Yale is in New Haven

Episodic: - You went on vacation away from New Haven last week

6.15.3. Encoding, Storage, and Retrieval

Refers to Different Levels of What Happens in Memory:

Encoding: - Getting memory in - As when you study for test - Or you have experience

Storage: - Holding the memory

Retrieval: - Getting memory out

6.15.4. Retrieval: Recall vs. Recognition

Often Broken Conveniently Into:

Recall: - When you just pull it out of memory

Recognition: - When you recognize what corresponds to something in past

Example:

Question: - "Anybody remember what color tie I had on two days ago?" - [Silence] - "That would be impossible to remember"

But: - "If I asked you: 'Is it purple or is it orange?'" - That would be much easier

6.16. Part 15: Stages of Memory

6.16.1. Crude Breakdown

Start: - Sensory memory - Just stuff that comes in

Leading To: - Short-term memory

Leading To: - Long-term memory

This Stage Theory: - Something we’ll discuss in more detail

6.16.2. This Leads to Issue of Attention

Question: - How do you get memory from your sensations, from what you’re hearing?

Example: - Lecturer speaking to you - You’re hearing - How does it ever get in to other systems?

Key Question: - What decides what’s remembered and what’s not?

6.16.3. What’s Happening to You Now

All Sorts of Things: - Seat of your chair pressing against your butt - Wouldn’t say: "Oh, I want to remember this forever" - Your neighbor exuding certain sort of smell - You’re thinking about something - Your eyes follow him - Not everything gets in memory

Consequence: - Would go mad if tried to remember everything - You can’t

6.16.4. Role of Attention

Question: - What determines what gets into memory?

Answer: - "Attention does"

Attention: - Could be crudely viewed as flashlight, spotlight on experience - Willingly zooms in on something - Makes it memorable

6.17. Part 16: Properties of Attention

6.17.1. Effortless vs. Effortful Attention

Some Things Come to Attention: - Effortlessly and automatically

6.17.2. Demonstration 1: Pop-Out Effect

Setup: - Going to see array of letters - One of them’s going to be green - When you see green one, please clap

Result: - Easy task - Green letter pops out

6.17.3. Demonstration 2: Effortful Search

Task: - "Find the red 'o'"

Result: - Much harder - Requires conscious search

6.17.4. Involuntary Attention: Stroop Effect

Demonstration Setup:

Part 1: Name Colors - Easy: Just go down colors

Part 2: Name Colors of Words - Words present but just name colors - Also easy

Part 3: Color-Word Conflict - Word "red" printed in blue - Word "blue" printed in green - Task: Name the color, not read word

Result: - Very difficult - Slower - Many errors - Can’t help but read word

This Is Stroop Effect: - Being expert reader - Knowledge of reading - Attention to what words meant - Subverted desire to do task - Couldn’t make that go away even if wanted to

Impossibility: - If somebody gave you $1,000 to read this as fast as you read [simple colors] - Would be unable to - Can’t block it

6.18. Part 17: Selective Attention and Inattentional Blindness

6.18.1. Gorilla Study

Setup: - See two teams of basketball players - One team: White T-shirts - Other team: Black T-shirts - Passing balls back and forth

Task: - Count in your head how many passes white team does with ball

Results:

Question: - "What number did people get?"

Follow-up Question: - "Did anybody notice anything unusual?"

Some People: - Did not notice anything unusual

For Those Who Didn’t: - "Watch this again and just watch it"

Key Finding: - About 50% of people when counting - Who have never seen this before - Don’t notice anything [gorilla walks through]

But: - When you’re not counting - Kind of obvious what you’re missing

Conclusion: - One demonstration among many - When you’re attending to something - Have very small window of attention - Lose focus on other things

6.19. Part 18: Change Blindness

6.19.1. Film Study

Setup: - Watch movie - Pay attention very closely to what happens - Try to remember

Questions: - "How many of you noticed something odd in that movie?" - "How many of you didn’t?"

Second Viewing: - "Now everybody look at": - The scarf - Color of plates - The food - Among other things

6.19.2. The Phenomena: Change Blindness

Definition: - Tend to be oblivious to other things that go on in environment - When there’s focus of attention focused in certain way

General Pattern: - Often quite difficult when there’s change in scene - To notice what changes and what stays same

6.19.3. Flicker Task Demonstration

Setup: - Two pictures flicking back and forth - Clap when you see what’s different between two pictures

Results: - Many people struggle - Some never see difference - Takes long time for others

6.19.4. Dan Simons' Research

Lecturer: - "This is work by Dan Simons" - Part of extraordinarily interesting body of work on "change blindness"

The Phenomena: - We have very narrow focus of attention - Huge changes can happen that we are oblivious to

Movie Continuity: - Why so much difficulty with continuity changes in movies

6.19.5. Real-World Studies

Cornell Campus Study:

Setup: - Get unsuspecting person walking through campus - Guy comes over - Says: "Excuse me, Sir. I’m lost. Could you help me with directions?" - Has map - Person says: "Sure" - Then: Two construction workers holding door - Going to rudely bump between these two characters - Experimenter gets switched with another guy

Result: - When two guys walk away - Subject standing there with entirely different person - What’s interesting: Nobody notices

Exceptions: - They notice if person changes sexes - "Didn’t you used to be a woman?" - They notice if experimenter changes races - But most other changes: Oblivious to

6.19.6. Human Subject Form Study

Setup (Brian Scholl or Dan Simons): - Subject comes in to lab - "If you’re going to do experiment with us, need to sign human subject form" - Hands form to subject - Subject signs form - Experimenter takes form - Says: "Thank you. I’ll put it down here" - Goes down - Then: Different person pops up

Result: - People don’t notice

6.19.7. General Conclusions

Pattern: - Certain level on which we’re oblivious to changes

What’s Weird: - We don’t think we are - We think we see world as it is - Don’t notice that when attending to something - Everything else gets blanked out

Gorilla Study: - About 50% of people who have never seen demo before - Don’t notice gorilla - Couldn’t imagine anything more obvious

6.19.8. Historical Note

Gorilla Study: - Actually done very long time ago - Originally done in different way - [Lecturer attempts to show original study but has technical difficulties with DVD]

6.20. Part 19: Question and Answer on Attention and Memory

6.20.1. Question 1: Why Does Practice Make Things Automatic?

Student Question: - Why does it work that way? - Why do things that become very practiced become automatic and involuntary?

Answer: - Good question - "I don’t know" - We know that they do

Examples:

Reading: - Once you know how to read - Can’t not read

Listening: - If lecturer talking to you - Even if extremely boring - Very hard not to listen - Can’t shut off your ears - Could put fingers in them - But can’t shut off ears

Vision: - Can’t shut your eyes without actually shutting them - Can’t say: "This is disgusting movie. I’m not going to attend to it"

General Pattern: - Not answering your question - Just saying observation is right one - And more general one - When you’re good at something and over-practiced - Becomes involuntary - You cannot stop it

6.20.2. Question 2: Did Man with Amnesia Remember Before Accident?

Student Question: - Did he remember things right before his accident?

Answer: - Yes - He had some amnesia of events before his accident - But did remember things - Knew his name - Knew other things about his life

6.21. Key Terms and Concepts

6.21.1. Animal Communication:

Finite list of calls
Continuous analog signal
Random variation on theme
Vervet monkeys
Bee dance
Birdsong
Trained primates (Kanzi, Nim Chimpsky)
Recursion (lack of in animal communication)

6.21.2. Language and Thought:

Linguistic relativity
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
Language as necessary for abstract thought
Structural properties affecting thought

6.21.3. Perception:

Retina (two-dimensional surface)
3D inference problem
Unconscious assumptions
Educated guesses
Color constancy
Shadow compensation
Checker shadow illusion

6.21.4. Gestalt Principles:

Proximity
Similarity
Closure
Good continuation
Common movement
Good form
Illusory contours

6.21.5. Depth Cues:

Binocular disparity
Interposition
Relative size
Texture gradient
Linear perspective
Mueller-Lyer illusion
Ponzo illusion
Shepard tables

6.21.6. Memory Types:

Sensory memory
Short-term memory (working memory)
Long-term memory
Implicit memory
Explicit memory
Semantic memory
Episodic memory
Autobiographical memory

6.21.7. Memory Processes:

Encoding
Storage
Retrieval
Recall
Recognition

6.21.8. Amnesia:

Retrograde amnesia (loss of past)
Anterograde amnesia (can’t form new memories)
Viral encephalitis
Temporal lobe damage
Hippocampus damage

6.21.9. Attention:

Selective attention
Effortless attention (pop-out)
Effortful attention (search)
Involuntary attention
Stroop effect
Inattentional blindness
Change blindness
Gorilla study
Flicker task
Attention as spotlight

7. Lecture 8: Memory Systems, Retrieval, and False Memories

lugaru

7.1. Introduction: Change Blindness in Real World

7.1.1. Dan Simons' Cornell Study

Background: - One of first studies done by Dan Simons when at Cornell - Adviser at time was Frank Keil (now in Yale department) - Videotapes not available publicly - Get them from web as little Java scripts

The Study: - [Video demonstration of person switching during interaction] - People don’t notice the switch

7.1.2. Big Moral of Change Blindness

What You Think You’re Experiencing:

Right Now: - You think you’re perceiving the world - Lecturer looks down and thinks has whole sense of where everybody is - Can’t see everybody perfectly in back - People kind of far away and blurry - But: There’s sense of having world around

When Close Eyes: - Everything just remains - Could sort of remember some things that are there

Your Perception: - Looking up - Think you have sense of world both in perception and memory

What Change-Blindness Experiments Suggest:

This Isn’t True

Scenario 1: - If you look at lecturer for second - During that second all classmates change positions - Including those next to you - You are extremely unlikely to notice

Scenario 2: - Turn eyes away from lecturer towards there for second - Turn back - Lecturer dressed entirely differently - You wouldn’t notice

Exception: - If you told yourself consciously: "Remember what this guy is wearing; he’s wearing this, that and the other" - But if don’t do it consciously: You’ll lose it

7.1.3. Why This Is Usually Okay

Basic Fact About Universe: - Most things stay same most of time

Memory and Visual System Exploit This: - Don’t have to explicitly remember that you’re over there when turn head for second - Because: You’ll be over there in any case - Don’t need to hold precise representations of world

Only Notice in Certain Clever Circumstances:

1. Psychologists Change Reality: - As in change-blindness studies

2. Movies: - Big surprises when people started making movies involving cuts - Extremely difficult to get everything continuously right - Need to work very hard to notice - All these continuity errors creep up into movies - Have to be film buff or writing it down to even notice this

Overall Moral: - Your perception of reality is lot more sparse, lot more limited, than you might think it is

7.2. Part 1: Review - Types of Memory

7.2.1. Where We Were at End of Last Class

Different Sorts of Memories:

Sensory Memory: - Fraction of second of sensory residue - Of what you’re hearing and seeing

Working Memory / Short-Term Memory

Long-Term Memory

Topics Covered: - How things get into sensory memory - Into working memory - Role of attention - Change-blindness studies: Actually just studies of how something gets from senses to consciousness - What does and what doesn’t

7.3. Part 2: Distinction Between Short-Term and Long-Term Memory

7.3.1. Storage Differences

Long-Term Memory (LTM):

Huge Storage Capacity: - Like hard drive of your computer - Memory you walk around with

What It Includes: - All words in English - Just for example: 60 to 80,000 words - Everybody you’ve ever met - Languages - Faces - Stories - Locations - Nursery rhymes - Songs - TV programs

Nobody Knows the Storage: - NOT true that you remember everything that has ever happened to you - No reason to believe this is true - At same time: Have huge amount stored in brain in long-term storage - Nobody actually—Has to be limited because it’s finite, limited brain - But nobody knows how big it is - Nobody knows how many terabytes you carry around in brain - But: It’s a lot

Working Memory / Short-Term Memory:

Actually Very Limited: - Memory of what you could store in consciousness right now - Quite limited

7.3.2. Demonstration: Memory Capacity

Exercise: - Do not write these things down - Want you to remember them - Going to give you few numbers

Numbers Given:

14, 59, 11, 109, 43, 58, 98, 487, 25, 389, 54

Then: - "Please write them down"

Results:

Class Survey: - "How many got three or less?" [Some hands] - "Four, five, six, seven, eight, nine or more?" - "Anybody get all eleven?"

Assessment: - Particularly difficult memory task - Numbers are meaningless - Forgot to tell people to get pen and pencil ready

7.3.3. George Miller’s Finding: Seven Plus or Minus Two

Under Normal Circumstances: - Standard memory storage of short-term memory is seven, plus or minus two

What That Means: - Anywhere from five to nine roughly

Individual Variation: - Some can beat that - Some on not-so-good day maybe won’t make it that much

"Seven Plus or Minus Two": - What you hold in consciousness - Can tell you 14, 21 - You walk around: "Oh, yeah, 14, 21" - Hold that in consciousness with no problem - But throw eleven numbers at you: Can’t - Some dribble out - Can’t hold that in conscious window in short-term memory

7.4. Part 3: Chunks - The Unit of Memory

7.4.1. The Question: Seven Plus or Minus Two What?

Answer: - What George Miller calls "chunks"

Definition of Chunk: - Basic memory unit - Something you think of as single, individual entity

7.4.2. Example 1: String of Letters

Letters: "L, A, M, A, I, S, O, N"

If Can’t Form Into Words: - Have to remember them - These are eight chunks - Have to pick them up separately

If Break Up Into Four Words: - Could just remember as four chunks

If Break Up Into Two Words in French: - "La maison" ("the house") - Could just be one or two chunks

Principle: - How much you know affects how much you could store in memory - Because: Affects what counts as basic unit of memory

7.4.3. Example 2: Binary Numbers

Numbers: "1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0"

If Don’t Know Binary Numbers: - Might have to remember as "1, 1, 0, 0," whatever was said

If Know Binary Numbers: - Computer scientists or mathematicians - Could convert into single binary number - "Anybody know what the number is?" [Someone guesses 24] - "Some number, 24, and then you remember '24'" - It’s easier

7.4.4. Example 3: Chessboard

If Don’t Know How to Play Chess: - Murderously hard to remember chessboard - They’ve done experiments - Taken people in lab who don’t know how to play chess - Set up chessboard - "Okay. Look at this for five minutes" - Take it away, set it up again - Murderously hard - "There is a horse-y thing on the side there and everything"

If Chess Pieces Set Up Logically: - Chess master could look at it and remember it in glance - "Oh. It’s the Fibonacci defense" or something like that - Then immediately recover it

7.4.5. Example 4: Football Diagrams

Football Coaches: - Have been tested on memories of football diagrams - Have photographic memory for football diagrams - Because: Corresponds to things that make sense

7.4.6. Example 5: Floor Plans

Architects: - Could have photographic memory, perfect memory for floor plans - Because: Makes sense to them - They understand it

7.4.7. General Principle

Way You Store Things in Memory: - Depends in large extent on how much you understand it - This is theme we’re going to return to when get to long-term memory

Shows Up In: - Expertise effects

7.5. Part 4: Getting Information Into Long-Term Memory

7.5.1. The Question

So Far: - Short-term memory - How much you hold in there

Question: - How do you get it into long-term memory?

You Have: - Long-term memory: Major storage system

How Does Information Get: - From your consciousness to long-term storage?

7.5.2. Maintenance Rehearsal (Doesn’t Work Well)

One Way: - Sort of works sometimes but not very well - Called "maintenance rehearsal"

Example:

Setup: - "Suppose I said you have to remember this number, this string of numbers" - "If you remember it in twenty minutes you will get one thousand dollars"

String: - Lecturer’s phone number when he was a kid - Include area code: 514-688-9057

Four-Year-Old: - Tell that to four-year-old - Four-year-old will say: "I’ll remember it" - Then ask them: "What did I just say?" - "Well, I don’t know"

Adult: - Because you know something - If a lot depended on it, would know to do something

What You Would Do: - Say to yourself: "514-688-9057, 514-688-9057, 514-688--" - Rehearse it in your head over and over again

The Problem:

Could Hold It: - As long as you can do that

Like Movies: - See this all the time - Episode of 24: "Jack, call CTU and tell them Agent 11 is trapped in a--" - Can’t even remember this - Way to remember: Hold it - Just got to repeat it over and over again in head

But: - This will not typically get things into long-term memory

7.6. Part 5: Structure and Organization for Long-Term Memory

7.6.1. What You Need

To Get Things Into Long-Term Memory: - Rehearsal is usually not enough - Need to do other things

Typically: - What you need is structure and organization

7.6.2. Classic "Depth of Processing" Experiment

Purpose: - Nicely illustrates fact that: - More you structure something - Deeper you think about it - Better it gets entrenched in long-term memory

The Study:

Setup: - Asked people/told people: Going to be words flashed on screen - All subjects saw same strings of words - Forty-eight words - Were NOT told to memorize words

Three Groups:

Group 1: Structural Processing - Told: "Look. Some of these words going to come out in capital letters, some not capital letters" - "Press button for capitals, non-capitals" - "Sure"

Group 2: Phonemic Processing - Told: "Some of these words will rhyme with 'train.' Others won’t" - "Press button if it rhymes with 'train'"

Group 3: Semantic Processing - Told: "Does it fit into sentence 'The girl placed the blank on the table'?" - "Press button if it does" - "Press button if it doesn’t"

Results:

Then: - Asked as surprise: "What words did you see?"

Findings: - When asked to focus on just what word looked like: Memory very poor - Sound: Better - Meaning: Better

Conclusion: - If you want to remember something - Best way to remember it: Give it meaning, give it sense

7.6.3. Memory Tricks: Ancient Technique

Illustrated Through: - Very ancient technique

The Way to Remember Things That Are Otherwise Arbitrary: - Give them some organization through memory tricks - Through vivid imagery - Or songs - Or poetry

7.6.4. Examples of Memory Tricks

Example 1: Hippocampus

Part of Brain: - Called hippocampus

Memory Trick: - "This is worst memory trick ever but will stick with you for twenty years"

Function: - Hippocampus involved in spatial memory - Involved in finding your way around

The Trick: - Think to yourself: "The way I find my way around campus is through the hippocampus" - You think: "Well, that’s stupid" - But: You’ll never forget now that hippocampus is in charge of spatial memory - "Going to be all you retain from this course"

Example 2: Remembering Names

Memory Books: - On how to remember people’s names - Usually try to exploit this sort of thing - Try to get poetry or dramatic images

Typical Approach: - Meet somebody with very spiky hair - They say: "My name is Mr. Fish" - Then you remember/think of their—of big fish impaled on their hair - Whenever you see them: Remember their name

Limitation: - "Only really works for names like 'Fish'"

The Idea: - Try to generate vivid imagery

General Strategies:

Ten Letters: - Turn into song - Or dirty poem - Where each of letters is first words of it

Something Totally Arbitrary: - Try to figure out grand and obscene image that will come to mind easily

These Are: - One way to get things into memory

7.6.5. Deep Level: Understanding

At Deep Level: - Way to get things into memory - Applies to this course no less than anything else - Is by understanding it

7.6.6. Demonstration: Memory and Context

Setup: - "I’m going to read you something" - "I want you to try your best to remember what I tell you" - Not going to be strings of numbers - Going to be series of sentences

Sentences Read:

"A newspaper is better than a magazine.
A seashore is a better place than the street.
At first it is better to run than to walk.
You may have to try several times.
It takes some skill but it's easy to learn.
Even young children can enjoy it.
Once successful, complications are minimal.
Birds seldom get too close.
Rain, however, soaks in very fast.
Too many people doing the same things can also cause problems.
One needs lots of room.
If there are no complications, it can be very peaceful.
Finally, a rock will serve as an anchor.
If things break loose from it, however, you will not have a second chance."

Assessment: - "Murderously hard to remember"

Then: - Shows picture [of kite flying]

Now Try It: - Knowing what this is about - Being able to put context to it - Helps the memory - Helps it come to mind

7.7. Part 6: Memory Retrieval

7.7.1. The Problem

Context: - Exam period - Got stuff presumably into your head - Have to get it out - Have to retrieve it

Other Situations: - Court case - Have to recount crime that you witnessed - See somebody - Want to know his or her name - You heard it - Just have to get it out

Question: - How do you do that?

7.7.2. Retrieval Cues

Retrieval Cues Make Sense: - Just things that have been associated with what you’re trying to remember

Examples:

Example 1: - Have to remember to replace windows - When walk into living room - See that window is cracked - That will remind to replace windows

Example 2: - Had lunch date with you - Forgot about it - When see you: "Oh, yeah. We were supposed to get together to have lunch"

Function: - Retrieval cues bring things back

But: - Little bit more complicated than that

7.7.3. Compatibility Principle / Context-Dependent Memory

More General Relationship: - Between encoding and retrieval - Called "compatibility principle"

What This Means: - Much better to remember something in context in which you have learned it

Also Known As: - Context-dependent memory - State-dependent memory

7.7.4. Strange Underwater Experiment

One of Strangest Experiments in History of Psychology:

Setup: - Had people on boat - Then had them scuba dive underwater - Taught them things either: - On boat - Or underwater with things they held up - Then tested them later

Results: - Turns out: You’ll remember it better if tested on it in context in which you learned it

Explanation: - Might be because then retrieval cues help bring it back

7.7.5. More General Than Environment

Applies to This Class: - If have to remember something you learned in this class - Will do better if try to think about room in which you learned it in - Will do better on final exam if were to take it in this room - Than if were to take it in another room - Because: Being in this room will bring back cues

Not Just Environment:

Learning While Stoned: - People who learn things when they’re stoned - Remember them better - Keeping stoned at sort of low-level that doesn’t disrupt other mental activities - Remember them better when sort of stoned again - Than if they’re non-stoned

Similarly: - "If you study while you drink" - "Should tipple a little bit before coming in to Final exam"

General Pattern: - "Sort of like 'what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas' sort of result"

Mood: - Similarly: Even applies to moods - If you learn something when depressed - Have slightly better recovery of it when you’re in same mood of depression - Than when you’re elated

The Idea: - Part of what memory is - Part of what recovering memory is - Is getting back your original context in which you learned it

7.7.6. Elaborative Rehearsal

Elaborative Rehearsal: - Involves connections between different things

Definition: - More you think about something - Easier it is to remember

If Have to Remember Something: - Try to connect it to as many things as possible - Think of an image - Make joke out of it - Imagine how you would explain it to somebody else - Imagine what world would be like if it wasn’t so

The Idea: - This sort of thinking about it makes connections in your memory - From that thing you have to learn, to other memories - So: Makes it easier to recover

7.7.7. Elaborative Retrieval

Refers to Finding: - When you want to get something back out of memory - People tend to give up too soon

Turns Out: - Lot of stuff that’s in your memory - But: Needs work to extract - Needs various sort of searching strategies

Study: High School Classmates

Setup: - Asked people who were considerably older than students - To remember their high school classmates

First Pass: - People were terrible - Maybe had couple of friends they kept in touch with - Otherwise: Pretty bad

Good Experiment: - Could use high school yearbooks to judge whether or not they get it right

Then: - Tell person: "Look. Keep trying" - "Who was your teacher?" - "What sort of clubs did you belong to?" - "What sort of sports did you participate in?" - "How did you get to school?" - "How did you get from school?" - "What did you do during lunch?" - "What did you do during break?" - "Do you know have any friends whose letter—whose last name began with 'B,' with 'C,' with 'D'?" - Keep pushing and pushing and pushing

Over Span of Time: - Things come back

Important Qualification: - "Again, not true that you never forget" - "There is honest to God forgetting" - But: Sometimes you think you forget - Because: Haven’t looked long enough

Real Physical Notion: - Of searching for right answer

7.7.8. Déjà Vu

Student Question: - Every class: Somebody asks either in class or by email - What about déjà vu?

Definition: - Déjà vu is feeling that event has happened before

Example: - Looking at lecturer lecturing - Say: "I’ve heard this before. I know this before" - See somebody - Say: "I’ve been in this situation before"

Not Evidence For: - Psychic powers - Which many people say it is

But: - Nobody really knows why this exists

Clue: - We know: It’s worse with frontal lobe damage - If you get damage to this part of brain - Get lot more déjà vu experiences

Asked Experts: - Including Marcia Johnson (chair of department) - "What’s best explanation for déjà vu?"

Best Theory:

Déjà Vu: - Is feeling that it’s happened before

Answer: - It HAS happened before - It’s happened half a second ago

What Happens: - Sometimes there is glitch - Disturbance in the force - There’s a glitch - You are talking - Then something happens to you - You put it in your memory - But: It’s as if you don’t put stamp on it of what time and what date

So: - Talking to lecturer - Then you store it in memory - But: Don’t store it in memory as happening right now - Then half second goes by - You’re talking to lecturer - You say: "This is strangely familiar"

That’s One Theory: - Of what goes on in déjà vu

7.8. Part 7: Memory Failure - Forgetting

7.8.1. Good News vs. Bad News

So Far: - Sort of good news: Remembering

But Then: - Bad news: Forgetting

7.8.2. Demonstration: Forgetting Numbers

Question to Class: - "How many people can remember, without looking down at notes, at least two of numbers I gave you earlier?" - [Some hands] - "How many people can remember at least four?" - "Oh, impressive"

If Asked in an Hour: - Number would go down

These Are: - Sort of statistics in similar experiment

Graph: - Illustrates that people forget - Over time: You’ll forget

7.8.3. Why Forgetting? Three Explanations

Question: - Why is there forgetting at all?

Explanation 1: Physical Decay

Your Brain: - Physical thing - Physical piece of meat - Kind of goes bad

Physical Things Decay: - Memory traces that are laid onto your brain will just decay over time

Explanation 2: Interference

Remember Those Numbers? - Here’s few more: 114, 81, 66, 42

Principle: - More information that comes in that’s similar to stuff you’re trying to remember - It blocks your recovery of original information

Result: - Your ability to remember something can be impaired by learning more things which are related to it - Because: They get confused in memory

Explanation 3: Changes in Retrieval Cues

Finally: - Maybe this is most interesting

Principle: - More time goes by: More the world changes - If your memory is to some extent dependent on cues bringing it back to life - Then: Change in retrieval cues can make it more difficult to recall certain things

7.9. Part 8: Childhood Amnesia

7.9.1. The Puzzle

Leads to Puzzle: - Considerable scientific debate over case of childhood amnesia

Childhood Amnesia: - Doesn’t refer to when child gets brain damage and gets amnesia - What it refers to: People have difficult time recovering very early memories

7.9.2. Exercise: First Memory

Want People To: - Take second - Try to think back on what your first memory is - Roughly how old you were

Survey Results:

Question: - "How many people don’t think you have first memory until you were about five years old or older?" [Some hands]

Question: - "How many people think you have first memory of around age four or younger?"

Question: - "How many people think you have first memory of around age three or younger?"

Question: - "Two or younger?"

Question: - "How many of you think you have first memory when you were about one years old or younger?" - "Not asking about past lives"

Individual Examples:

Student 1: - "Between one and two"

Question: - "Anybody think they could beat that?"

Student 2: - "One"

7.9.3. Problems with Research

Literature Is Unclear: - Very difficult to test people’s recollections of first memories

If Ask People: - They’ll often say: "Oh, yeah. I remember I was in this room and there was crib and I’m going 'Ga ga, goo goo' and I was on potty. I was walking. I was so cute. I remember it"

Very Difficult to Tell: - As we’ll discuss in some detail - Lot of reasons to distrust people when they—not that they’re lying - But: To distrust accuracy of people’s memories

Studies About Trauma: - Know from studies about trauma - Where people have terrible experiences when they’re one or two - Typically: This trauma is not remembered later on - People know of trauma because they’re told about it - But: Don’t typically remember it with any accuracy

Even Children: - Older children don’t remember back beyond that age

7.9.4. Why Childhood Amnesia Occurs

Status: - Nobody knows why childhood amnesia occurs - Nobody knows why it’s very difficult to recover memories before about age of three

Theory 1: Retrieval Cues Change Radically

Example from Friend: - Friend who’s clinical psychologist - Suggested new form of therapy - Make giant tables and chairs - Then bring you into office - You’re standing there with giant tables and chairs - All these memories of being baby would come flooding back - "And he dropped out of field" - "Really, but it’s such cool idea"

Theory 2: Language Is to Blame

Some People Think:

Child Development: - Baby starts out with no spoken or signed language - Language comes to be learned at around one, two, and three

Might Be: - Learning of language reformats your memory - Once memory is reformatted - Can’t go back to previous state prior to language in end

Theory 3: Neural Maturation

Could Be: - Neural maturation - Could be that memory parts of brains grow around age two or three - That just weren’t there prior to that

Status: - Nobody really knows - Fascinating research area - Why—about memory changes early on

7.10. Part 9: Brain Damage and Amnesia

7.10.1. Two Types of Amnesia

Another Case of Memory Failure: - Brain damage

Brain Damage Comes In: - Couple of flavors

7.10.2. Retrograde Amnesia

"Retro" for Past:

Definition: - When you lose some memory of past

Could Be: - Case where you get some sort of head trauma - Lose memory of entire episodic memory

Typically: - If you have any sort of serious accident that involves losing consciousness - You’ll have blackout of some period prior to that - Say, blow to head

Reason for This: - As you’re having these experiences now - They need to kind of get consolidated into your brain - Your brain needs to rewire and catch up to experiences you’re having - Sudden blow to head will knock you unconscious - Then: Memories that have happened immediately prior will not get consolidated - They’ll be lost forever

7.10.3. Anterograde Amnesia

Another Sort of Memory:

Happens In: - Korsakoff’s syndrome - Happens to very famous patient known as H.M. (actually lives in Hartford, Connecticut) - Happened to Clive Wearing (film you saw last class)

This Sort of Amnesia: - Sort of amnesia where you lose ability to form new memories - So: You live in perpetual present - Unable to accumulate new memories

Actually Little Bit More Complicated:

Exciting Discovery: - About these patients - Led to some real insights about normal memory

Brain Damage in These Cases: - Temporal lobe - Hippocampus (very useful for spatial memory you’ll know)

7.10.4. Discovery: Can Form New Memories (Of Certain Types)

Example Task: - Filling in star while looking into mirror - If asked you to do it: Find it pretty difficult - Just kind of difficult to do - Be clumsy at it

Bring In Amnesic: - Who can’t form new memories - Say: "Hey. I want you to try something new. I want you to try this star game" - He’d say: "Okay. I’ve never seen it before but I’ll do it" - Tries it - Does very badly

Bring Him In Over and Over Again: - Each time he does it: Starts off by saying "I’ve never seen this before. I’ll—I’m sure I’ll give it try" - But: He gets better and better at it

This Is Known As: - Implicit memory

The Claim: - In these sorts of cases you lose abilities to form explicit conscious memories - That you’re aware of - That you understand - But: Some sorts of memories persist - You are able to form them

7.10.5. Movies Illustrating This

Bad Movie: - Drew Barrymore loses ability to form new memories - Somehow falls in love with Adam Sandler - "Definitely don’t watch that"

Very Good Movie: - "Memento" - About character who loses ability to form new memories - While trying to track down wife’s killer - "Memento" is movie which is fascinating - Because: Told backwards - But throughout "Memento": Another story told forwards

Likes This Story Because: - Very dramatically illustrates - What does, and what is and is not impaired - In cases of severe memory damage

Shows Clips: - That illustrate disassociation from "Memento" - "Those of you who have seen movie know this ends up quite tragically for Sammy" - "Highly recommend movie"

7.11. Part 10: Everyday Forgetting Summary

We’ve Dealt Right Now With: - Two sorts of failures of memory

7.11.1. Type 1: Everyday Failure

Question to Class: - "How many of you remember three or more of numbers I originally presented?"

Student Response: - [Gives three numbers] - "Fourteen, 59, 11"

Question: - "Is that right?" [Laughs]

Follow-Up: - "I’m going to ask you again in a month"

Comment: - "Well, people are supposed to forget" - "Some things will—you will forget"

Status: - Normal forgetting

7.11.2. Type 2: Forgetting Due to Brain Damage

Characteristics: - Exotic and unusual

But Interesting: - Illustrates some more general themes about how mind works

Remember: - One theme of this course - Going to look at exotic cases like case of Clive Wearing - Not just because they’re interesting in own right - But: Sometimes by looking at extremes - Could learn something about how normal people’s normal, intact minds and brains work

7.12. Part 11: False Memories - Power of Suggestion

7.12.1. Introduction to Third Type of Forgetting

The Third Case: - More interesting

7.12.2. Sam Stone Demonstration

Setup: - "What I want to do is you to listen to three children describe event that happened" - "Want you to come to some—your own guess" - "Imagine you were judge, childcare worker" - "Wanted to see—want you to be—come to your own guess about who you believe and what you think happened"

Shows Three Children: - Describing what happened

Question to Class: - "You’ve heard three children. Who do you believe?" - "There’s three of them, one, two, three" - "Who believes first one?" - "Who believes second one?" - "Who believes third one?"

Result: - Sort of even split

7.12.3. Expert Survey

Twenty-Three Hundred Experts: - Were shown these films - Asked about different actions: - Whether or not person ripped book - Messed up bear - Tossed book in air

As You Could See: - Majority thought that he did

7.12.4. The Truth

This Is Work Done By: - Steve Ceci - Who was gracious enough to lend film to use for teaching purposes

Turns Out: - Second girl was right - Absolutely nothing happened

What Actually Happened: - Teacher said: "There is somebody named Sam Stone who’s going to come in" - Guy walks in - Says: "Hi" - Walks around - Leaves

7.12.5. How Memories Were Implanted

First and Third Children: - Had their memories implanted - Not through any sort of science fiction means

Method: - Some of children would just ask questions - Interviewer, by way, was herself unaware of what happened - Interviewer was perfectly naive interviewer

Turns Out: - If you just interview children - Ask them questions about whether book was ripped - "Did you see him? Did he really do it?" - They don’t say anything - Didn’t see anything - Won’t say anything

7.12.6. Experimental Conditions

Condition 1: Stereotype

Other Children: - Were told about Sam Stone - Were told stereotype about Sam Stone - That he’s very clumsy - Tends to rip things - Trips - Breaks things - Spills things

In Fact: - Third child mentioned that in passing - Said: "He always does that"

Result: - Just knowing this about Sam Stone tends to raise proportion of kids who say, for instance, that he ripped book

Condition 2: Suggestive Questioning

Other Children: - Were given suggestions - Were given suggestive questioning - Were series of leading questions like: - "Oh. Sam Stone came in? Did he rip book while he was there?"

Condition 3: Both Stereotype and Suggestions

Still More Children: - Got both

In Fact: - Children you saw were from this group - Heard Sam Stone being described as clumsy fellow - Were given series of suggestive questionings

In This Condition: - Given several suggestive questionings over period of several months

7.12.7. Key Points

These Children: - Like first child and third child - Are NOT lying - Honestly believe that Sam Stone came in and did these things

Also: - They believe it - They’re so convincing in their belief

Experts: - Including: - Police officers - Child caseworkers - Judges - Lawyers - Find these children to be extremely believable

Thinks: - Probably find them to be extremely believable - Because: Children are not lying - They really believe they saw what they saw

But: - These memories were implanted

7.12.8. Research on Implanted Memories

Ceci and Many Other Investigators: - Study how memories can be implanted in people’s minds - Through suggestion - Through leading questions

Turns Out: - Same sort of experiments - Same sort of research - Has been done with considerable success - In implanting false memories in adults

7.13. Part 12: False Memories in Adults

7.13.1. Dramatic Cases

There Are: - Dramatic cases of people remembering terrible crimes - Confessing to them - When actually: They didn’t commit them

This Is Not Because: - They are lying

Not Even Because: - They’re, in some obvious sense, deranged or schizophrenic or delusional

Rather: - They have persuaded themselves - Or more often: Been persuaded by others - That these things have actually happened

7.13.2. Laboratory Studies

Psychologists Have Studied: - In laboratory - How one could do this - How one can implant memories in other people

7.13.3. Basic Techniques

Some Things Are Sort of Standard:

Example: - Suppose lecturer was to tell you story about: - Trip to dentist - Visit to—or time when ate out at restaurant - And omit certain details - Omit fact that paid bill in restaurant, let’s say - Or finished meal and then went home

Result: - Still: You will tend to fill in blanks - You’ll tend to fill in blanks with things you know

So: - Might remember this later saying: - "Okay. He told me he finished eating, paid bill and left" - Because: Paying bill is what you do in restaurant

This Is: - Benign enough - Fill in blanks

7.13.4. Integration of Suppositions

You Also Can: - Integrate suppositions made by others

Clearest Case: - Eyewitness testimony

7.14. Part 13: Elizabeth Loftus' Research on Eyewitness Testimony

7.14.1. Overview

Best Research: - Done by Elizabeth Loftus

Series of Studies: - Some discussed in textbook - Showing how people’s memories can be swayed by leading questions - Can be extremely subtle

7.14.2. Study 1: "A" vs. "The" Broken Headlight

In One Experiment:

Setup: - Person was just asked in course of series of questions - Shown scene where there’s car accident

Asked Either: 1. "Did you see a broken headlight?" 2. "Did you see the broken headlight?"

The 'The': - Presupposes that there was broken headlight

In Fact: - People asked: "Did you see the broken headlight?" - Later on: More likely to remember one - Creates an image - They fill it in

7.14.3. Study 2: School Bus

In Another Study:

Would Show: - Film segments

Then Ask: - "Did you see the children getting on the school bus?"

Now: - There was no school bus

But: - People who hear that question - Later on when asked: "Did you see school bus in film?" - More likely to say yes

7.14.4. Study 3: "Hit" vs. "Smashed"

In Another Study:

Would Show: - People film segments

Ask Them Either: 1. "How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?" 2. "How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?"

Week Later: - Bring people back into laboratory - Ask: "Did you see any broken glass?"

Result: - Those who hear "smashed": Tend to see broken glass more than those who hear "hit" - Because: Question has changed their memory - Making it more of dramatic event

7.15. Part 14: Hypnosis and Memory

7.15.1. Hypnosis as Reconstructive Process

Hypnosis: - Clearest case where there’s sort of reconstructive effort - Led as result of leading and probing questions

7.15.2. Who Can Be Hypnotized

Some of You: - Are readily hypnotizable - Can be hypnotized

What We Would Learn: - About past event from hypnotizing you - Will not necessarily then be inaccurate

7.15.3. What Hypnotizing Does

Makes People: - Very willing to cooperate

Unfortunately: - Isn’t as if there is memory storage there - Where you could just go through and look - As in movies where you just say: "What’s license plate?" - Person’s hypnotized - Then flashback comes in - Then they zoom in on license plate

Memory Doesn’t Work That Way: - What happens is—What somebody will do in hypnotizable state - They’ll be very eager to please hypnotist - So: They’ll make stuff up

People Under Hypnosis: - Just make stuff up - Do very enthusiastically - Very believably make stuff up

7.15.4. Hypnotic Regression

Particularly Case With: - Hypnotic regression - When we ask you to go back to sixth birthday party, for instance

What’s Great as Developmental Psychologist: - If ask you to go back to fourth birthday party - And you’re hypnotizable - You’ll be oh, just like four-year-old

Except: - You won’t be like real four-year-old - What you’ll be like is adult’s notion of what four-year-old is supposed to be

Extreme Case: - Happened with hypnotic regression - Where people claim to speak languages like from ancient Egypt

Linguists Love These Studies: - Don’t—of course don’t really sound like you’re speaking language from ancient Egypt - What you sound is like North American who believes he’s speaking language from ancient Egypt - So they’re "nonsense sounds"

What It Makes You: - Hypnotism brings out actor in you - Makes you want to give persuasive account of what happened

So: - Hypnotism is just extreme form of what normally happens in eyewitness testimony

7.16. Part 15: Repressed Memories

7.16.1. Introduction

Could Devote: - Class—Could devote semester - To very heated debate in United States mostly - About repressed memories

7.16.2. Basic Phenomenon

Many Adults: - Have claimed to have experienced traumatic sexual abuse

Some Cases: - Unexceptional from memory point of view - People know this happened to them - They’ve always known it happens to them - Then they tell people about it

Subset of Cases: - People have had no memory up to point of what happened to them - Then: They go to psychologist or psychiatrist - Undergo questioning - Often using hypnotic techniques - Then: They recover memory of past traumatic sexual abuse

7.16.3. The Debate

What Makes This Debatable: - There is debate about this - Lecturer doesn’t want to try to preclude it one way or another

Position 1: Memories Are Real

Some Psychologists Believe: - In at least some cases - These memories are real - Have been repressed through Freudian mechanism - They’re too terrible to bring to consciousness - Therapy brings them out into real life

Position 2: Memories Are Created

Most Psychologists Believe: - These memories cannot be trusted - These memories are created through actions of therapist

7.16.4. Legal Battles

Actually: - Considerable psychological and legal battles - Over veracity of therapists

Cases:

Women’s Claims: - Women who have claimed to have been sexually abused - Have pressed criminal charges against fathers - On basis of false memories

Fathers' Claims: - Similarly: People who have been accused of sexual abuse - Have pressed criminal charges against psychiatrists - Claiming: These psychiatrists have implanted memories into their sons and daughters

7.16.5. Status

Controversial: - Whether memories are ever repressed

Not Controversial: - For at least some cases - Can implant false memories in people

Not Because: - You’re sinister or evil person

But Because: - You really believed something happened - Talked to them about it - Then: Caused these memories to come into being

7.17. Part 16: Flashbulb Memories

7.17.1. Introduction

Asked Early in Semester: - Will ask again

Question: - "How many of you remember where you were on September 11, 2001?"

Follow-Up: - "Is there anybody who doesn’t remember where they were on September 11, 2001?" - "Would be interesting"

Nature of Event: - Socially relevant event

7.17.2. Problem with Flashbulb Memories

Here’s the Problem:

Flashbulb Memories: - Idea that these memories being so vivid - And they are vivid for many of us - Exactly where we stood - What happened

Well: - They can’t really be trusted

7.17.3. Why Not

Here Is Why Not:

Because: - They are such important events - Bet many of you have actually heard question before: - "Where were you on September 11th?" - Talked about it

What Happens in These Conversations: - Stories change

Personal Example: - Lecturer had—knew where he was on September 11th - Wife knew where she was - But: Spent as much time listening to her talk about it - As spent time talking about it himself - "And now maybe my memory is actually of her experience and not mine"

7.17.4. The Temptation to Resist

For All of These Cases:

Temptation You Have to Resist: - Saying: "Yes. I know memories can be swayed. I know they could be distorted and everything" - "But, you see, I really am sure that happened"

You Have to Resist That Temptation: - Because: There are so many cases we know - Including tape of girls that we just saw - Where people are entirely sure things happened - And we know full well that they didn’t exist

Being Sure: - Is no guarantee that memory isn’t: - False - Reconstructed - Or even implanted

7.18. Part 17: Three Main Morals About Memory

7.18.1. Summary of Memory Section

This Part of Memory Has: - Three main morals

7.18.2. Moral 1: Many Types of Memories

Talked About: - Short-term memory - Long-term memory - Implicit memory - Explicit memory

These Are: - Sort of separable sort of memories - Could break one while having other one impaired

Arguably: - There are brain systems dedicated to: - Memory for faces - Memory for everyday objects - Memory for spatial locations

7.18.3. Moral 2: Key Is Organization and Understanding

The Key to Remembering: - Organization and understanding

Introduction to X Courses: - Including Introduction to Psychology courses - Among hardest courses at Yale

Reason Why: - There is just lot of material that is diverse - Have to command each aspect separately

Easiest Courses at Yale: - Tend to be highfalutin seminars - Where you kind of have enough of background - That everything is—can be clear and understandable

The More You Understand Something: - Easier you’ll remember it

7.18.4. Moral 3: Can’t Trust Some of Your Memories

Finally: - You can’t trust some of your memories

7.18.5. Reading Response

Your Reading Response for This Week: - You have to use your powers for good and not for evil - "Though if you manage to succeed at this I will be very impressed"

Task: - Have to describe, based on lecture materials and readings - How to implant false memory

7.19. Part 18: Question and Answer on Memory

7.19.1. Question 1: What Type of Memory Is Playing Piano?

Student Question: - "What sort of memory is it when you know how to play piano?"

Answer: - Very good question

It Is Long-Term Memory: - Because: Might know how to do concerto or song - Have it stored in your head - Carry it around with you - Will remember it year from now, two years from now - It is long-term memory

But: - Also excellent example of implicit memory - Because: Know how to do it - But: Could do it unconsciously without attending to it - Not sensory - But: As if, put it crudely, your fingers know and not your mind

7.19.2. Question 2: Photographic Memory

Student Question: - About photographic memory

Answer:

Lot of Claims: - About photographic memory

Lecturer’s Understanding: - They do not tend to be substantiated

Sometimes: - Photographic memory - This came up when talked about autism few classes ago - Is linked with savant-like skills - People who have severe impairments in some ways - May have photographic memories in others

Not Convinced: - That photographic memory in sense that: - You see something - Take picture of it - Hold it in memory - Really exists

May Be: - One or two case studies that suggest it might be real - But: Thinks it’s controversial

7.19.3. Closing

Okay: - Have guest lecturer on Wednesday - Dean Peter Salovey will talk to us about love

7.20. Key Terms and Concepts

7.20.1. Memory Types:

Sensory memory
Working memory / short-term memory
Long-term memory (LTM)
Implicit memory
Explicit memory
Semantic memory
Episodic memory
Autobiographical memory

7.20.2. Memory Capacity:

Seven plus or minus two (George Miller)
Chunks
Storage differences
Expertise effects

7.20.3. Getting Into Long-Term Memory:

Maintenance rehearsal
Depth of processing
Structural processing
Phonemic processing
Semantic processing
Structure and organization
Memory tricks
Vivid imagery
Understanding

7.20.4. Memory Retrieval:

Retrieval cues
Compatibility principle
Context-dependent memory
State-dependent memory
Elaborative rehearsal
Elaborative retrieval
Déjà vu

7.20.5. Memory Failure:

Forgetting
Physical decay
Interference
Changes in retrieval cues
Childhood amnesia
Retrograde amnesia
Anterograde amnesia
Consolidation

7.20.6. Brain Structures:

Temporal lobe
Hippocampus (spatial memory)
Frontal lobe

7.20.7. Memory Disorders:

Korsakoff’s syndrome
H.M. (patient)
Clive Wearing
Viral encephalitis

7.20.8. False Memories:

Implanted memories
Suggestion
Leading questions
Stereotype effects
Suggestive questioning
Eyewitness testimony
Elizabeth Loftus' research
Hypnosis
Hypnotic regression
Repressed memories
Flashbulb memories
Sam Stone study (Steve Ceci)

7.20.9. Famous Movies:

"Memento"
Drew Barrymore/Adam Sandler amnesia movie

8. Lecture 9: The Psychology of Love and Attraction

lugaru :toc: left :toclevels: 3 :sectnums:

Based on Peter Salovey’s Yale Introductory Psychology lecture (Valentine’s Day)

8.1. Defining Love: Sternberg’s Triangular Theory

Robert Sternberg (former Yale faculty, later Dean of Tufts) proposed that love consists of three required components:

8.1.1. The Three Components

Component	Definition	Operational Meaning
Intimacy	Feeling of closeness, connectedness, bonding	Sharing secrets/information you don’t share with others
Passion	The drive that leads to romance	Physical attraction, sexual arousal
Commitment	Decision that one is in a love relationship	Willingness to label it as love + desire to maintain it

Component

Definition

Operational Meaning

Intimacy

Feeling of closeness, connectedness, bonding

Sharing secrets/information you don’t share with others

Passion

The drive that leads to romance

Physical attraction, sexual arousal

Commitment

Decision that one is in a love relationship

Willingness to label it as love + desire to maintain it

According to Sternberg: It’s not love if you don’t have all three elements. It’s also not love if you don’t call it love.

8.1.2. Permutations: What You Get With Different Combinations

Zero Components

Non-love - The relationship you have with a random stranger

One Component Only

Type	Intimacy	Passion	Commitment	Description
Liking	✓	✗	✗	Casual friendships - closeness without attraction or commitment
Infatuation	✗	✓	✗	"Love at first sight" - pure physical attraction, no knowledge of person, no future thinking
Empty Love	✗	✗	✓	Commitment without intimacy or passion

Type

Intimacy

Passion

Commitment

Description

Liking

✓

✗

Casual friendships - closeness without attraction or commitment

Infatuation

✗

✓

✗

"Love at first sight" - pure physical attraction, no knowledge of person, no future thinking

Empty Love

✗

✓

Commitment without intimacy or passion

Empty Love is particularly interesting:

Often the final stage of long-term relationships gone bad ("staying together for the kids")
In arranged marriage societies, often the first stage - commitment exists before anything else
Arranged marriages don’t have higher divorce rates, BUT confound: they occur in societies that make divorce socially costly

Two Components ("Two Out of Three Ain’t Bad" - Meat Loaf)

Type	Intimacy	Passion	Commitment	Description
Romantic Love	✓	✓	✗	Physical attraction + close bonding, but no commitment. Romeo & Juliet when they first met. Won’t use the "L word."
Companionate Love	✓	✗	✓	Best friendship - committed to sharing intimacy forever, but no physical attraction. The Greek ideal.
Fatuous Love	✗	✓	✓	Whirlwind courtship, Hollywood romance, Vegas wedding. "Committed to each other for sex." Hard to sustain - may have nothing in common.

Type

Intimacy

Passion

Commitment

Description

Romantic Love

✓

✗

Physical attraction + close bonding, but no commitment. Romeo & Juliet when they first met. Won’t use the "L word."

Companionate Love

✓

✗

✓

Best friendship - committed to sharing intimacy forever, but no physical attraction. The Greek ideal.

Fatuous Love

✗

✓

Whirlwind courtship, Hollywood romance, Vegas wedding. "Committed to each other for sex." Hard to sustain - may have nothing in common.

Three Components

Consummate Love - Complete love. The full package.

Research has focused more on attraction (what draws people together initially) than love itself. Seven key variables identified, divided into two groups.

8.2.1. The Big Three (Obvious, Powerful Effects)

The phrase to understand these: "All other things being equal…"

1. Proximity (Spatial Closeness)

People physically closer together are more likely to form romantic relationships.

Evidence:

Manhattan studies: Correlation between city blocks separating people’s doors and likelihood of romantic relationship
College campus studies: Negative correlation between feet separating dorm room doors and relationship formation

Cultural myth contradiction: We romanticize "the stranger" - but statistically, it’s the person nearby you’ll fall for.

2. Similarity

On any dimension psychologists have measured, more similar people are more attracted to each other.

Obvious: height, age
Less obvious: attitudes toward capital punishment, sports team preferences

Common sayings evaluated:

Saying	Evidence?
"Opposites attract"	No - little evidence
"Similarity breeds contempt"	No - little evidence
"Birds of a feather flock together"	Yes - supported

Saying

Evidence?

"Opposites attract"

No - little evidence

"Similarity breeds contempt"

No - little evidence

"Birds of a feather flock together"

Yes - supported

3. Familiarity

We fall in love with people we already know, not strangers.

"Some Enchanted Evening" (South Pacific) - seeing a stranger across a crowded room - is a cultural myth, not the statistical norm.

The Mere Exposure Effect:

Works even for non-human stimuli
Flash words in an unfamiliar language very quickly
Later, mix those words with new ones
People prefer the words they saw before - even if they don’t remember seeing them
Works even with subliminal exposure

8.2.2. The More Interesting Four (Subtle Effects)

1. The Pratfall Effect

Core finding: Our liking for a competent person increases when they make a mistake.

Why it matters:

We’re attracted to competent people over incompetent ones (obvious)
BUT super-competent people are threatening - they diminish us by comparison
The competent person who occasionally blunders becomes more attractive

The Classic Experiment (Elliot Aronson):

Participants listen to tape recordings of "College Bowl" quiz show candidates:

Nearly Perfect Person:

92% correct answers
Member of campus honor society
Editor of yearbook
Ran varsity track

Mediocre Person:

30% correct answers
Average grades
Yearbook proofreader
Tried out for track, didn’t make it

The Blunder Condition:

Half of participants hear additional audio: clattering dishes, person saying "Oh my goodness, I’ve spilled coffee all over my new suit."

Results:

Person Type	No Blunder	With Blunder
Competent	Attractive	Even MORE attractive
Mediocre	Less attractive	Even LESS attractive

Person Type

No Blunder

With Blunder

Competent

Attractive

Even MORE attractive

Mediocre

Less attractive

Even LESS attractive

Sad irony: The effect works both ways. Blundering only helps if you’re already seen as competent.

Real-world example: Bill Clinton’s popularity didn’t suffer much after the Lewinsky scandal - "It just shows he’s human."

2. Physical Attractiveness

The uncomfortable truth: We say looks don’t matter, but they do.

Survey vs. Reality:

When surveyed, college students say these matter:

Warmth ✓
Sensitivity ✓
Intelligence ✓
Compassion ✓
Sense of humor ✓
Looks ✗ (they say it doesn’t matter)

Blind date studies: The ONLY significant predictor of getting a second date was physical attractiveness.

University of Minnesota "Computer Dance" study:

Students randomly paired by computer algorithm
Extensive data collected on all participants
Only predictor of continuing the relationship: rating partner as attractive

The "Frizzy Wig" Experiment (Aronson):

Setup: Naturally attractive female confederate interviews male participants, made to look either attractive or unattractive (frumpy clothes, bad makeup, frizzy wig). Gives them personality evaluations (favorable or unfavorable).

Results:

Confederate Appearance	Feedback Type	Participant Response
Attractive	Positive	Delighted
Attractive	Negative	Really upset; sought future interaction to prove evaluation wrong
Unattractive	Either	Didn’t care - feedback had no impact

Confederate Appearance

Feedback Type

Participant Response

Attractive

Positive

Delighted

Attractive

Negative

Really upset; sought future interaction to prove evaluation wrong

Unattractive

Either

Didn’t care - feedback had no impact

Implication: Feedback from attractive people has more psychological impact on us.

3. Gain-Loss Effect

Core principle: We are wired to be more sensitive to change than to steady states (change signals danger or opportunity - evolutionary advantage).

The Gain Effect:

Not most powerful: Someone who always loves you ("I love you, I love you, I love you…")
Most powerful: Someone whose regard for you is increasing over time
Even if their average regard is lower (started low, went high), the positive trajectory captures attention
The first derivative matters more than the absolute position

The Loss Effect:

Not most hurtful: Someone who has always been negative (constant hostility loses power to hurt)
Most hurtful: Someone who was positive but whose regard is fading

"Nothing can hurt you like the person you love" - Ricky Skaggs

You can only hurt the one you love because you expect positive feedback from them
When that turns negative, it’s devastating

4. Misattribution of Arousal

Core concept: You feel physiologically aroused but aren’t sure why → you make up an explanation → sometimes that explanation is wrong → you think it’s love when it’s something else.

The Starbucks Thought Experiment:

You’re on a date, order decaf for your companion
Barista accidentally uses caffeinated espresso
Walking home at 1am, companion feels: rapid heartbeat, sweaty palms, shorter breath
She thinks: "I ordered decaf, so it can’t be coffee…"
She looks at you: "What a rare mood I’m in. It’s almost like being in love."
Reality: Two shots of caffeine. Misattributed as romantic attraction.

The "Rickety Bridge" Field Experiment (University of British Columbia):

Two ways to cross a river on campus:

Bridge Type	Characteristics
Rickety Bridge	Rope bridge, hundreds of feet up, sways in breeze, 3 feet wide, scary
Solid Bridge	Low, near water, solid wood planks, wide, safe

Bridge Type

Characteristics

Rickety Bridge

Rope bridge, hundreds of feet up, sways in breeze, 3 feet wide, scary

Solid Bridge

Low, near water, solid wood planks, wide, safe

Attractive female confederate intercepts men after crossing, asks questions, collects a story they write, gives her phone number.

Results:

Bridge	Story Content	Called Her Later?
Rickety	Sexy, ribald themes	More likely
Solid	Boring	Less likely

Bridge

Story Content

Called Her Later?

Rickety

Sexy, ribald themes

More likely

Solid

Boring

Less likely

Interpretation: Fear arousal from rickety bridge misattributed as attraction to the woman.

CRITICAL FLAW: This is not a true experiment - no random assignment. People who choose the rickety bridge may be adventure-seekers who would naturally write sexy stories and call strangers. Selection bias.

Laboratory Experiments (with random assignment):

Painful Shock Study:

Control: "Please wait here. Fill out forms rating experimenter’s attractiveness."
Experimental: "Please wait here. The painful shock experiment will begin shortly. Fill out forms."
Result: Shock condition rated experimenter as more attractive (anticipatory arousal misattributed)

Treadmill Study:

Control: Wait and fill out forms
Experimental: Run on treadmill for 10 minutes, then fill out forms
Result: Exercise condition rated experimenter more attractive
Effect persists even when arousal source is obvious

"This is why the fourth floor of Payne Whitney Gym is such a dangerous place… that combination of aerobic exercise and spandex leads to trouble."

The Fake Heartbeat Study:

Male subjects view Playboy centerfolds
Wearing headphones supposedly amplifying their heartbeat
Asked which centerfold they find most attractive
Twist: Not actually hearing their heartbeat - hearing a tape recording
Experimenter randomly speeds up the "heartbeat" at different slides
Result: Whichever slide played during fast heartbeat = rated most attractive
You can misattribute arousal that isn’t even real

8.2.3. Serious Implications: Domestic Violence

Why do people stay in abusive relationships?

#1 Reason: Economic - belief there’s no alternative (homelessness, children’s welfare)

#2 Reason: Misattribution of arousal

Emotional/psychological abuse: screaming, name-calling, fights
Creates physiological arousal
Misattributed as love: "He wouldn’t be yelling at me if he didn’t love me"
Fear misattributed as mutual attraction

Real example: Woman whose boyfriend punched out her car window while yelling at her. Her response: "That’s when I knew he really loved me."

His aggression → misattributed as love
Her fear → misattributed as mutual attraction

8.3. Key Methodological Points

8.3.1. Limitations Noted

Many classic experiments can’t be replicated today - ethical standards have changed
Much research has androcentric and heterosexual bias (male participants, female targets)
Question to always ask: Do findings generalize to other dyadic relationships?

8.3.2. Experiment vs. Non-Experiment

True experiment requires: Random assignment to conditions

Rickety Bridge study flaw: Participants self-selected which bridge to cross → can’t establish causation

8.4. Summary Table: Attraction Variables

Variable	Effect	Key Insight
Proximity	Closer = more attracted	It’s not the stranger you fall for
Similarity	More similar = more attracted	Opposites don’t actually attract
Familiarity	More familiar = more attracted	Works even with subliminal exposure
Pratfall	Blunders increase liking for competent people	Only works if already seen as competent
Physical Attractiveness	Attractive = more influence, more second dates	We deny it matters, but it does
Gain-Loss	Increasing regard > constant regard	First derivative matters more than position
Misattribution	Arousal from any source can be mistaken for attraction	Even fake/obvious arousal can be misattributed

Variable

Effect

Key Insight

Proximity

Closer = more attracted

It’s not the stranger you fall for

Similarity

More similar = more attracted

Opposites don’t actually attract

Familiarity

More familiar = more attracted

Works even with subliminal exposure

Pratfall

Blunders increase liking for competent people

Only works if already seen as competent

Physical Attractiveness

Attractive = more influence, more second dates

We deny it matters, but it does

Gain-Loss

Increasing regard > constant regard

First derivative matters more than position

Misattribution

Arousal from any source can be mistaken for attraction

Even fake/obvious arousal can be misattributed

8.5. Discussion Questions Raised

Can someone feel consummate love for more than one person?
- Evolutionary perspective: Yes - facilitates genetic diversity
- Social construction: Most societies say no - creates conflict
- Result: Probably possible, but conflicted
Do the Big Three affect relationship maintenance or just initial attraction?
- Literature mostly focuses on initial attraction
- Hard to follow couples over time without interference (Heisenberg-esque problem)
Wouldn’t natural selection favor people who learn and apply this knowledge?
- Would require designing a proclivity for learning this material
- Would make social psychologists very happy if true

Share on

X Facebook LinkedIn Bluesky