3 ms·

Interesting theory, but I suspect there is an simpler an equally plausible explanation. > In this experiment, the task was to complete sentence fragments, eith

Interesting theory, but I suspect there is an simpler an equally plausible explanation. > In this experiment, the task was to complete sentence fragments, either in an abstract or a concrete way. For example, some might complete this fragment: "An example of a bird is ______." Others completed this kind of fragment: "A bird is an example of ______." The first requires a concrete example—an indigo bunting, for example, or scarlet tanager—while the second asks for an abstract category—warm-blooded vertebrates, say There's another difference between these two tasks: one is easier than the other. The experiment did not control for this. It did ask participants how difficult they thought the task were, and found no significant difference between the two groups. From that they infer that the results are not explainable by difference in difficulty - which seems flawed to me. Since when did perceived / stated difficulty become a barometer of actual difficulty? This is repeated across all three experiments. I suspect they are simply measuring differences in real difficulty, and its divergence from stated difficulty. Link to paper: http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/SozWiss/fg-psy/gollwitzer/PUBLICATIONS/McCreaetal.PsychSci09.pdf http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/SozWiss/fg-psy/gollwitzer/PUB... (the lack of raw data in this paper is worrying, and makes validation very tough).

arien 17y ago
I don't think it's that hard. But I did notice that I could give an almost immediate answer the question "An example of a bird is ______", whereas my first reaction to "A bird is an example of ____" was "uff" and just kept on reading the article. Then I read your comment and I thought, is it really hard? And then I actually tried to get an answer. It was even easier than the first one (I just said "animal" :P). So I think the article does have a point. It's not that it's harder, our brain's initial reaction makes it look hard. And maybe it's because it's easier to process and deliver concrete information rather than vague or abstract. On a side note, I wonder if these two questions asked to little kids instead of students would have different results...

arien 17y ago

I don't think it's that hard. But I did notice that I could give an almost immediate answer the question "An example of a bird is ______", whereas my first reaction to "A bird is an example of ____" was "uff" and just kept on reading the article. Then I read your comment and I thought, is it really hard? And then I actually tried to get an answer. It was even easier than the first one (I just said "animal" :P). So I think the article does have a point. It's not that it's harder, our brain's initial reaction makes it look hard. And maybe it's because it's easier to process and deliver concrete information rather than vague or abstract. On a side note, I wonder if these two questions asked to little kids instead of students would have different results...