>> HI. SO I'M TOO SHORT. SO I AM AM VERY HAPPY TO SUPPORT AND DELIGHTED TO HAVE AS OUR SPEAKER TODAY DR. FRANK KEEL -- KYLE, SORRY. JOINS US FROM -- EXCUSE ME. I'M TANGLED UP HERE. SO DR. KYLE GOT HIS DOCTORATE -- SORRY, HIS BACHELOR'S DEGREE. HE BEGAN AT MIT. SO HARD TO START IN ANY BETTER PLACE IN SCIENCE. AND CAN THEN WENT ON TO A MASTER'S AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND A PH. D IN PSYCHOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WEREN'T FAMILIAR WITH DR. KYLE, HE WAS A PROFESSOR, THE KEENAN JUNIOR PROOF COURSE OF PSYCHOLOGY AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY AND THEN MOVED ON TO HIS CURRENT POSITION AT YALE UNIVERSITY, WHERE HE IS THE PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY AT YALE UNIVERSITY AND RECENTLY WAS THE ACTING CHAIR COUNCIL OF MASTER'S AT YALE UNIVERSITY. HE HAS NUMEROUS AWARDS AND PUBLICATIONINGS OF NOTE, TOO MANY FOR ME TO MENTION. I HAVE GOOD NUMBER SENSE BUT THERE IS TOO MANY TO MENTION. BUT A FEW I WILL MENTION. THOSE INCLUDE THE NIH MERIT AWARD. DR. KYLE IS A PROFESSOR RESEARCHER IN MY PORTFOLIO, MASSIVE SCIENCE, COGNITION AND LEARNING. AND HE HAS THE N BROWN AWARD OF EXCELLENCE IN DEVELOPMENTAL RESEARCH. HE'S PUBLISHED A SIGNIFICANT CO-EDED A SIGNIFICANT BOOK THAT MANY OF US FONDLY CITE CAN. SO THE MIT TEXT ON COGNITION DEVELOPMENT. HE'S THE RECENT PUBLICATION IN 2011 IN "SCIENCE" ON SCIENCE STARTS EARLY. SO YOU WILL HEAR SOME OF ABOUT HIS PHILOSOPHY ABOUT HOW SCIENCE BEGINS AT THE VERY EARLY AGE, MUCH EARLIER THAN WE GET TO SCHOOL. AND CAN NUMEROUS, NUMEROUS OTHER PUBLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ENORMOUSLY VALUABLE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME DR. KYLE AND TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO REALLY PICK HIS BRAIN, BECAUSE HE HAS VERY INSIGHTFUL AND I THINK SOMETIMES PLAYFUL AND INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US. >> THANKS, KATHY. PLAYFUL, OKAY, I'LL TO BE TRY TO BE PLAYFUL. AND THANK YOU FOR COMING. I KNOW IT'S GORGEOUS WEATHER OUTSIDE. APPRECIATE YOUR MAKING THE SACRIFICE. I AM GOING TO TRY TO GO FOR ABOUT 40, 50 MINUTES AND COVER A LOT OF STUFF BUT HOPEFULLY PROVOKE SOME DISCUSSION. SO THE QUESTION I WANT TO ASK IS WHAT SHOULD WE BE TRYING TO DO WITH SCIENCE EDUCATION? WHAT ARE COGNITIVELY FEASIBLE KIND OF GOALS? WHAT KIND OF KNOWLEDGE DO WE WANT KIDS OR ADULTS FOR THAT MATTER TO END UP WITH? AND IT MIGHT SEEM, SFAESHL YOU TAKE LOT OF PEOPLE THAT THE ANSWER IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. YOU WANT THEM TO HAVE MECHNISTIC UNDERSTANDING. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW A LOCK WORKS, THERE IS TINY DETAILS BUT SURELY SOMETHING LIKE THIS KIND OF MENTAL BLUEPRINT IS WHAT OUR GOALS SKWLVENLT OR IF YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW A HEART WORKS, THEN YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF CHLORIC WORKS IMAGE IN YOUR HEAD AND THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE GOOD SCIENCE LITERACY. AND THIS INTERESTING MECHANISM SEEMS TO BE VERY EARLY EMERGE SOG THAT SORT OF SUPPORTS THIS POINT OF VIEW. WE KNOW FROM ACTUALLY A LOT OF RESEARCH THAT EVEN PRESCHOOLERS ARE EXTREMELY MECHANISM-PHILLIC. THEY ARE DRIVEN TO UNCOVER MECHANISM. IF THEY ASK A WHY QUESTION AND YOU GIVE THEM AN ANSWER THAT'S FACT-BASED OR SOME OTHER KIND OF ANSWER, VERY COMPELLING, THEY WON'T STOP. THEY WILL KEEP GOING UNTIL YOU GIVE THEM THE KIND OF MECHNISTIC ENTER AND THEN THEY WILL STOP. THEY KNOW THAT THE INFORMATION IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT AND TRUMPS OTHER KINDS. SIMILARLY IN A LOT OF ADULTWORK, THERE IS A NICE REVIEW OF THIS BY KALISH, MECHANISM INFORMATION, VERY EASILY TRUCHZ CAN BEINGAL INFORMATION IN TRYING TO LOOK AT WHAT EVIDENCE YOU HAVE FIND MORE COMPELLING. SO IT SEEMS THAT CAUSAL SFLANGSS, SCIENTIFIC LITERACY WITHOUT WE CAN MECHANISM IS EMPTY AND YET THE PUZZLE, DESPITE THIS, WE'RE TERRIBLE AT REMEMBERING MECHANISMS. JUST DREADFUL. AND THIS IS TRUE FOR BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS, FOR NON-LIVING, NATURAL SYSTEMS, FOR ARTIFACTS AND DEVICES. AND EVEN WHEN THERE IS MASTERY, IT DECAYS SO RAPIDLY THAT IT'S SEEMINGLY USELESS. AND ARGUABLY AND SOME WORK SUGGESTED FAR NARRATIVES AND OTHER KINDS OF STRUCTURES. SO WHEN THIS FELLOW HERE THINKS HE UNDERSTANDS HOW THE HEART WORKS, IF WE ACTUALLY GO AND ASK PEOPLE -- I WANT TO CHANGE ANY MY NOTES. I JUST REALIZE I DON'T HAVE ANY MY SUPPORT NOTES. GIVE ME ONE SECOND HERE CAUSE I WANTED TO SEE WHAT MY NEXT SLIDE IS TO FORGIVE OUT WHAT I'VE DONE. SORRY. OKAY, GOOD. IF WE ASKED THIS FELLOW HERE -- YES -- WHAT A HEART REALLY IS AND HOW IT WORKS, WE DAY STUDY WHERE WE ACTUALLY HAD UNDERGRADUATES DRAW DIE GRAMS AND WE IDENTIFIED UNDERGRADUATES WHO HAD ACTUALLY TAKEN ART CLASSES AND WERE PRETTY GOOD AT MAKING DEPICTIONS SOLIT DRAWING WAS NOT GOING TO BE A BARRIER. THIS ONES OF THE BETTER HEART DRAWINGS WE GOT AND THIS IS A COMPLETELY NON-FUNCTIONAL HEART. WE DID THE SAME THING FOR AN AIR CONDITIONER. WE WANT YOU TO DRAW A DRAWING EXACTLY HOW AN AIR CONDITIONER WORKS AND ALL YOU KNOW ABOUT ITS INTERNAL PARTS AND EVERY DETAIL YOU CAN THINK OF SO YOU CAN REALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT BREAKS DOWN AND THINGS LIKE THAT{}[INAUDIBLE] BUT I'LL TALK ABOUT IT IN TWO SECONDS. SO -- I THINK YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THIS IS PRETTY PATHETIC. IT'S A VERY GOOD DRAWING, BUT WE GOT FLOPPY THINGS. CAN ALL RIGHT. [LAUGHTER] IT'S JUST NOT IN PRODUCTION. THERE IS THIS WONDERFUL STUDY BY REBECCA LAWSON IN ENGLAND WITH BICYCLES AND PEOPLE REALLY LIKE TO RIDE BICYCLES IN BRITAIN, SO YOU'D THINK THEY HAVE A THE LOW OF EXPERIENCE. AND SHE SIMPLY GAVE THEM DIFFERENT DRAWINGS OF BICYCLES AND ASKED THEM TO IDENTIFY WHICH WAS THE REAL ONE. SHE HAD 50 PERCENT ERROR RATE. PEOPLE DETECTED THIS. SO THIS IS STUNNING. AND SHE EVEN WENT DOWN MEMBERS OF A CYCLING CLUB. THESE ARE GUYS WHO TAKE APART BICYCLES DAILY BUT THEY WERE MUCH BETTER BUT THEY STILL HAD A FIVE PERCENT ERROR, WHICH IS STUNNING. WE DID THE STUDY AND WE HAVEN'T FINISHED IT YET BUT WE HAVE LOTS OF DATA. WE SAID LET'S TAKE A CASE WHERE WE KNOW GOT EITHER 100 IN SAT 2 AND BIO, AND SHE REALLY ROCKED IT. AND SO WE TOOK KIDS WHO HAD THAT KIND OF THRESHOLD AND WE SAID WELL, WHAT HAVE THEY LEARNED PRETTY WELL? IF THEY'D GOTTEN A 500 OR 800, THEN -- FU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL TEST, IT'S ONE OF THE MOST BASIC THINGS IN BIOLOGY. SO THEY UNDERSTOOD QUITE LOT ABOUT IT. SO THAT'SETTE. MAYBE WE CAN SEE WHAT STICKS IN TERMS OF MECHNISTIC KNOWLEDGE. SO SOME OF THIS DATA IS A COUPLE WEEKS OTHER OLD. WE SIMPLY SAID TELL US EVERYTHING YOU KNOW AND DRAW IT OUT. YOU CAN USE WORDS AND DIAGRAMS AND JUST DIE DUMP ALL YOUR KNOWLEDGE. SO HERE IS THE ACTUAL CYCLE. [LAUGHTER] THEY KNEW ACRONYMS LIKE PGA, AND OF COURSE THIS PERSON HAS IT BACKWARDS AND LOSING ENERGY. NOW ONE OF THE KIDS, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE -- AND THIS IS ONE KID IN THEIR SCORE. SO THEY ARE REALLY DREADFUL. NOW DO THEY GET NOTHING? NO, THEY DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT AND WE ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY HAVE EXTRACTED. ONE THING THAT THEY SORT OF GET IS THIS IS THE REAL CYCLE. HERE IS AN FAUX CYCLE AND THEY WERE A LITTLE BIT ABOVE CHANCE AT KNOWING THIS WAS TWO, TOO, SPARCE OR TOO DENSE BUT JUST BARELY. AND HERE IS THE REAL DEPRESSING ONE. A LOT OF THEM REJECTED THIS AS A LEGITS MAT KREB CYCLE BUT WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT? IT'S COUNTERCLOCKWISE BUT THEY SAID SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH THIS. SO THIS IS KIND OF DISCOURAGE. SHE'S ARE EXTREMELY GOOD LEARNERS. I KNOW ONE KID SAID "I WAS A KILLER AP BIO KID IN HIGH SCHOOL AND YET ONE OF HER DIAGRAMS WAS ONE OF THE ONES YOU SAW EARLIER. SO THAT'S THAT BUT IT GETS WORSE BECAUSE NOT ONLY ARE PEOPLE TERRIBLE AT THIS, THEY DON'T REALIZE HOW BAD THEY ARE. THEY HAVE THESE HUGE ILLUSIONS OF UNDERSTANDING. IS THERE A TECHNICAL PROBLEM? PEOPLE THINK THEY HAVE MUCH MORE MECHNISTIC UNDERSTANDING THAN THEY REALLY DO AND WE CALL IT THE ILLUSION OF EXPLANATORY SDPEPT HERE'S HOW WE TEST IT. WE'VE DONE THIS A BUNCH OF TIMES SO IT'S A PRETTY ROBUST METHOD. WE PUT YOU ON A SCALE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE MECHNISTIC DETAILED KNOWLEDGE. AND LEVEL 7 MEANS THAT BASICALLY IF YOU HAD A MACHINIST AT YOUR SIDE, YOU CAN MAKE ONE FROM SCRATCH. YOU KNOW EVERYTHING. HE NOW HOW THEY ARE DESIGNED. LEVEL 4 WOULD MEAN WE KIND OF KNOW THAT THEY HAVE EXTRA STRENGTH WITH A TRIGGER CATCH BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THE DETAILS. AND LEVEL 1 IS A SAD STATE WHERE YOU BASICALLY -- IT SHOOTS ARROWS. SO WE GAVE THEM A WHOLE LIST OF 40 ITEMS, CYLINDER LOCKS, HELICOPTERS AND SAID FOR EACH ONE OF THESE I WANT YOU TO QUICKLY RATE WHERE YOUR LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING IS. IS IT A 7 OR 4. THAT'S WHAT WE CALL THE T 1 RATINGS. THEN THE T 2 RATINGS, OKAY, GREAT FOR THESE TELL US WHAT YOU KNOW. AND HAVING JUST WRITTEN THAT NOW, NOW TELL US HOW GOOD WAS YOUR INITIAL RATING? DO YOU STILL WANT TO KEEP IT WHERE IT WAS OR LOWER OR HIGHER, WHERE ARE YOU? THEN WE ASK THEM A DIAGNOSTIC QUESTION, SOMETHING THAT EXPERTS TOLD US WAS A PRETTY GOOD QUESTION TO SEE IF YOU UNDERSTOOD HOW THE THING WORKED. SO FOR THE HELICOPTER, WE'D SAY HOW DOES IT GO FROM HOVERING TO FLYING FORWARD? TURNS OUT A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY KNOW HOW HELICOPTERS WORK ARE TOTALLY FLOORED BY THAT. IT'S HARD. AND THEN WE GAVE THEM AN EXPERT EXPLANATION. WE GAVE THEM A BEAUTIFULLY WRITTEN OUT TERSE BUT INCREDIBLY WELL-CONSTRUCTED AND SAID READ THIS AND TELL US NOW WHERE YOU THINK YOUR INITIAL KNOWLEDGE WAS COMPARED TO THIS. SO THAT'S THE T 4 RATING. AND FINALLY WE HADN'T GOTTEN THEM TOTALLY DEPRESSED THAT THEY COULDN'T FUNCTION AND SAID HAVING INNER CORPORATING YOUR LIST, WHERE IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING NOW? AND LOOK AT THE BLUE ONE FIRST. THEY DROPPED QUITE CONSIDERABLY. SO THIS IS THE INITIAL RATING AND THIS IS WHEN THEY GAVE THE EXPLANATION AND THIS IS WHEN THEY ASKED THE DIAGNOSTIC QUESTION. THEN THEY POPPED BACK UP AGAIN WHEN THEY STARTED THIS. WE RAN THIS IN THE LAB WITH GRAT GRAD STUDENTS AND THE ASSISTANTS SAID WE WOULD NEVER DO THIS. AND THE UNDERGRADS ARE THOSE IN PINK AND SHOW A LARGER DROP. THIS IS A PRETTY ROBUST FINDING. THE LESS YOU KNOW, THE WORST THE ILLUSION. UNFORTUNATELY IT GETS WORSE THE LESS YOU ACTUALLY START THE MATERIAL. IT'S ALSO SURPRISINGLY RESISTANT TO EXTIKTS JECHLTH DEBRIEFED SUBJECTS AND EXPLAINED THE WHOLE TASK AND SAID THIS IS WHAT WE DID AND WE GAVE YOU THESE ITEMS AND THERE WAS A LIST OF 40 ITEMS AND THIS GROUP GOT THESE FOUR ITEMS AND WHAT WERE THE OTHER FOUR ITEMS? SHE THEY SAID OH, IF YOU GAVE ME THOSE, I WOULD HAVE NAILED IT. EVEN FU TELL THEM THE I LUSION, THEY STILL THINK. I WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE DATA BUT IT GETS STRONGER AND STRONGER THE YOUNGER YOU GET. YOUNG KIDS ARE WICKEDLY BAD AT THIS, THINKING THEY KNOW MORE THAN THEY DO. AND THIS IS NOT MUCH OF AN EXAGGERATION. YOU ASK THEM HOW A HELICOPTER FLIES AND THEY THINK THEY HAVE ALL THIS KNOWLEDGE AND THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH MORE THAN THIS. [LAUGHTER] NOW, PART OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, I THINK IS WHAT WE CALL -- IT'S RELATED TO A PHENOMENA CONCOGNITION DETAIL. WE OFTEN FEEL THAT WHEN WLEEFKD AT A SCENE THAT WE'VE PROCESSED IT COMPLETELY AND RETAINED IN OUR REPRESENTATION EVERYTHING WE'VE JEEVENLT WHEN IN FACT WHAT'S GOING ON IS WE'VE MONITORED THE SCENE BUT WE HAVEN'T STORED IT. BUT WE OFTEN MAKE THAT CONFUSION. LET ME GIVE AN EXAMPLE. LOOK AT EACH OF THE OBJECTS OF THE SCENE AND RUN THROUGH THEM ALL VERY QUICKLY. YOU ARE VERY CONFIDENT AND SURELY YOU CAN RECOGNIZE IF I CHANGED AN OBJECTS WHAT I JUST CHANGED. SOME OF YOU PROBABLY GOT IT BUT HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN TELL ME WHAT WAS HERE BEFORE I SWITCHED? ONE PERSON. WHAT WAS IT? THAT'S GOOD. DO YOU PLAY DRUMS? THAT'S GOOD. HOW ABOUT NOW? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> SO THE THING IS PEOPLE ARE VILLAINSED. THERE IS NOT THAT MANY OBJECTS. PART OF WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THESE ILLUSIONS IS PEOPLE SEE INSIDE OF OBJECTS AND SEE THEM IN DIAGRAMS OF HOW THINGS WORK, TUTORIALS, OR THEY HAVE ACTUALLY TAKEN APART IT. SO THEY HE CAN'T EXTRACT AND SAY I'VE GOT IT. YOU CAN REVISIT THE OBJECTS AND GET THE INFORMATION AGAIN LATER. THERE IS THIS HUGE SOURCE OF CONFUSION ABOUT WHERE IT IS. WE THINK PART OF THE ILLUSION OF HAVING THESE VIVID MECHNISTIC REPRESENTATIONS IS YOU DON'T NEED TO STORE THEM BUT YOU THINK YOU DO AND IT'S RELATED TO THIS ILLUSION. SIR? I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS SO COMPLICATED. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> VERY GOOD. I'LL HAVE MORE INFORMATION IN A SECOND. NOW, OKAY, SO WE THINK WE REPRESENT THE WORLD IN HOW THINGS WORK WITH DIAGRAMS. WE HAVE STORED THEM BUT THEY WE DON'T. THIS IS SOME WORK WE HAVE JUST FINISHED WORK ANDS, TWO ILLUSION FSZ ARGUMENT AND HOW WELL DO YOU THINK YOU CAN ARGUE THE TOPICS LIKE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMAN ACTIVITY AND GLOBAL WARMING. I DON'T CARE WHICH VIEW YOU HAVE, HOW WELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO ARGUE YOUR POINT OF VIEW? HOW ABOUT THE IDEA THAT CELL PHONES LEAD TO CANCER OR SIMPLY THE VIRTUES OF STEM CELL RESEARCH IS A THERAPEUTIC TOOL? WE TEACH THEM HOW TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF ARGUMENTS ON A SEVEN-POINT SCALE BUT NOW IT'S FOR ARGUMENTS. WE GIVE THEM A LOUSY SCORE ONE ARGUMENT, A GORGEOUS SCORE 7 ARGUMENT AND WE SAY OKAY, SIGN ASSIGN A NUMBER TO EACH OF THESE AND WE ALSO ASK HOW MUCH DO YOU CARE ABOUT THIS ADULT AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY THAT'S RELEVANT. SOMETIMES THEY CARE A LOT AND SOMETIMES THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS. AND THEN WE ASKED THEM TO WRITE OUT AN ARGUMENT. AND WHAT WE GET IS QUITE INTERESTING. THE BLUE LINE IS OUR INITIAL RATING. THE RED LINE IS THEIR ACTUAL RATING AFTER THEY'VE WRITTEN OUT THE ARGUMENTS. WE SEE THE SAME KIND OF ILLUSION, THAT'S SO SAY -- TO SAY THEY'RE QUITE STRONGLY DELUDED INTO THINKING THEY KNOW MORE THAN THEY DO. YOU SHOULD NOTICE TWO THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE CONFRONTED WITH THEIR OWN INABILITY TO EXPLAIN, THEY ARE STILL ABOVE. BUT NOTICE ANOTHER FACTOR. YOU CAN HAVE TWO DIFFERENT STORIES. ONE WOULD BE THE MORE YOU CARE THE BETTER YOU KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW BECAUSE YOU HAVE INVESTED IN IT BUT THE MORE YOU CARE ABOUT THE ARGUMENT THE MORE DELUDED YOU ARE UNDERSTAND INNING IT WELL. AND WHEN YOU DON'T. SO THIS IS A VERY UNFORTUNATE THING THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE ZEALOUS ARE OFTEN THE WORST IN CORROBORATING THEIR OWN EXPERTISE. OKAY. I'M JUST REPEATING THAT. THERE IS ACTUALLY ANOTHER SIDE TO THIS HAVING TO DO WITH EVEN WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO GET THEM INTO ARGUMENTS T DEPENDS ON THE KIND OF ARGUMENTS. WE HAVE ANOTHER LINE OF WORK AND IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE, IT ONLY MAKES IT WORSE. OKAY, HERE IS ANOTHER THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT BECAUSE IT'S GOTTENS A LOT OF ATTENTION AND IT IS RELEVANT. THE ILLUSIONIST IS COMPOUND BY ILLUSIONS OF INSIGHT WHERE WE THINK WE HAVE INSIGHT WHEN WE DON'T AT ALL. BLINDING LIGHT OF MANY IMAGING RESULTS. THE STUDY WE DID AND JUST IN A NUTSHELL IS WE GAVE PEOPLE GOOD VERSUS BAD PSYCHOLOGY STUDIES. WE DESCRIBED THE PHENOMENA AND GAVE AN EXPLANATION AND THE GOOD ONES ARE ONES WHERE WE GIVE AN EXPLANATION THAT ACTUALLY HAS SOME UM F TO IT. EVERYONE CAN TELL THE GOOD FROM THE BAD AND LAY PEOPLE CAN SAY THAT'S A TERRIBLE STUDY, THAT DOESN'T TELL YOU ANYTHING. NOW WE GET THE EXACT SAME STUDIES AND SUDDENLY ALL THE STUDIES ARE GOOD. THEY CAN'T TELL THE GOOD FROM THE BAD. SO WE GET SEDUCED BY CERTAIN KINDS OF PARTICULARS AND THAT MAKES US THINKING WE HAVE MORE UNDERSTANDING. SO WHY DO WE HAVE ALL THESE I LUGSZ? I GAVE YOU SOME REASONS. LET ME GIVE YOU A FEW MORE. MY COLLEAGUE SUGGESTED THIS MIGHT BE A DEVELOPMENTAL LEGACY. IF YOU ARE A VERY YOUNG KID, YOU ARE SO CLUELESS ABOUT HOW THE WORLD WORKS AND IF YOU WERE CONFRONTED WITH YOUR OWN LEVEL OF IGNORANCE, YOU MIGHT BE DISCOURAGED. SO THIS OPTIMISM ABOUT YOUR LEARNING PHYSICAL AND OTHERWISE AND THEIR KNOWLEDGE, THAT IT MAY BE A GOOD MOTIVATIONAL FACTOR. ANOTHER THING THAT HAPPENS AND WE'VE SEEN THIS A NUMBER OF OUR STUDIES, IS PEOPLE CONFUSE FUNCTIONAL INSIGHT WITH MECHNISTIC INSIGHT. YOU THEY KNOW HOW TO MAKE SOMETHING WORK AND THEY THINK THEY ACTUALLY KNOW HOW IT WORKS RATHER THAN JUST HOW TO USE IT. THE THIRD THING IS YOU CAN TAKE THINGS APART AND FIGURE OUT HOW IT WORKS. HERE IS A KID TAKING APART A TOASTER AND WE OFTEN CONFUSE THE SUCCESS OF WITH HAVING TAKEN THAT INTO OUR HEADS AND STORING IT. SO WITH ALL THE PARTS AND SORT OF PHYSICAL SCAFFOLD, YOU CAN FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW IT WORKS. IF YOU ARE SUCCESSFUL AND LEAVE THE SXROOMENT TOASTER IS ON THE TABLE AND YOU THINK YOU'VE GOT IT WHEN IN FACT YOU DON'T HAVE IT. THERE IS A GREAT BOOK CALLED "THE TOASTER PROJECT."^ THIS IS A GUY WHO SAID "I WANT TO SEE IF I CAN MAKE A TOAST FRERE SCRATCH. I'LL STUDY SOME DIE GRAMS AND MAKE IT FROM RAW MATERIALS AND IT WAS A COMPLETE DISASTER. THE AMOUNT OF EXPERTISE AND TECHNOLOGY INVOLVED -- IT'S A SCIENCE. IT'S A GOOD BOOK. ALL RIGHT, SO HERE IS THE DILEMMA AT THIS POINT. SO FAR LARGELY SHATTERED ALL HOPE OF EDUCATION AND I SORT OF TOLD YOU THAT YOU CAN'T RETAIN ANYTHING. MECHANISM DISSOLVES, WE SHOULD GIVE UP AND WE'RE JUST DELUDED. WELL, OF COURSE, THAT'S NOT WHAT I REALLY CAME HERE TO TALK ABOUT BUT I WANT TO SET UP THE POINT THAT IF YOUR QUEST AND GOAL IS FOR PEOPLE TO CARRY IN THEIR HEADS LITTLE CYCLES, EVEN WHEN THEY'RE GOOD LEARNING, IT ALL DECAYS OR IT EVEN NEVER GETS IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO WHY THEN ARE KIDS DRIVEN TO SEEK MECHANISM IF IT COMPLETELY EVAPORATES ONCE IT GETS IN THEIR HEAD? A LOT OF OUR RESEARCH IS DEVOTED TO IS THAT MECHANISMS WHICH KIDS ARE GOOD AT TRACKING AND HOLDING ON TO AND WHICH GUIDES THEM IN THESE POWERFUL WAYS TO DO SCIENCE AND IT LEADS INTO ALL SORTS OF SDWRUFSHGS WHICH I WANT TO TALK ABOUT. TALOUSY THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER A SYSTEM IS ONE THAT HAS FEEDBACK WITH POSITIVE CYCLES, ALLOWS THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THERE MIGHT BE CERTAIN TRENDS SUCH AS A TIPPING POINT KIND OF PHENOMENAL AND CAUSEALITY, SOCIAL VERSUS = CONTACT CAUSEALITY, WHICH FORCES TRANSMISSION. DIFFERENT PATTERNS AND EVEN PREVERBAL INFANTS AND WORK THAT WE'VE DONE ON THE DEGREE TO WHICH THERE IS NON-RANDOMNESS IN A PARTICULAR SYSTEM AND WHAT THAT MEANS. SO I'M REALLY INTERESTED IN THE COGNITIVE SCIENCE AT ALL LEVELS. BUT ONE OF THE REASON I FOCUS ON KIDS IS THEY REVEAL THE COGNITIVE BUILDING BLOCKS AND TELL US WHAT IS MOST USED OR RETAINED EVEN IN ADULTS AND MOREOVER, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE WORST OF ALL IN RETAINING MECHANISM, THEY LEARN TO COMPENSATE IN WAYS THAT ARE VERY, VERY POWERFUL AND EARLIER EMERGE. FOR EXAMPLE, THEY USE THESE ABSTRA ABSTRACT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A REASONABLE AREA OF EXPERTISE. THEY USE THEM TO DEFER SELECTIVELY TO RELY ON SOME EXPERTS AS OPPOSED TO OTHERS. AND THEY ILLUSTRATE WHY AND HOW SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING IS FEASIBLE EVEN WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE MECHNISTIC UNDERSTANDING. SO A LOT OF THE WORK WE'VE DONE IS TO SHOW THAT IF YOU GIVE A TASK TO KIDS AND WE'VE DONE THIS EVEN WITH PRESCHOOLERS, BUT THE STRONGEST EFFECTS ARE IN KINDERGARTENERS AND OLDER. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY PEOPLE FIGHT WHEN THEY ARE TIRED. WHY PEOPLE SMILE AT THEIR FRIENDS WHEN THEY SEE THEM? OR WHY SALT MELTS ICY DRIVEWAYS. THAT'S BASICALLY A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY CONTRAST COMPARED TO CHEMISTRY VERSUS ONE SOCIAL SDOLG ANOTHER SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY PHENOMENA AND THEY NAIL IT, THEY GET IT. HUGELY FOR ALL THE SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY. THEY CAN GIVE YOU PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, ECONOMICS. BUT THEY GET THESE AND I ASSURE YOU MOST KINDERGARTENERS HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY MEAN BUT THEY HAVE. SO ONE PERSON HAS MASTERY OF A PARTICULAR PATTERN, THEY KNOW WHAT HE OTHER KINDS OF PATTERNS ARE IN THE SAME DOMAIN. SO THEY ARE SENSITIVE AND USE SOME OF THE PATTERNS, NOT THE LEVEL OF MECHANISM, TO TRACK WHAT'S GOING ON. I AM NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S A LONG STORY BUT THAT'S JUST AN INILLUSTRATION. THEY ALSO USED CAUSAL DENSE NIT. HOW MUCH CAUSAL STUFF IS GOING ON TO IMPLEMENT EXPERTISE. HOW PLAUSIBLE IS IT THAT THERE ARE EXPERTS TO CARS TO DRIVE ON ROUGH ROADS AS OPPOSED IN CARS THAT HAVE DIRTY WINDSHIELDS. OR CLOUDS THAT YOU SEE JUST BEFORE THUNDERSTORMS VERSUS CLOUDS THAT YOU SEE JUST BEFORE BASEBALL GAMES. HOPEFULLY ALL OF YOU REALIZE THOSE ARE TRULY ABSURD AREAS OF EXPERTISE. THEY ARE CATEGORIES PICKED UP BY ONE OR TWO CRITERIA. HOWEVER, IT'S A LITTLE BIT SUBTLE THAN THEY APPEAR. WHEN YOU PRESENT THIS TO KIDS, IT'S INTERESTING. THEY'RE NOT VERY GOOD BUT THEY'RE ABOVE THEY SHOULD FOR THE ARTIFACTS. THE ACTUAL KINDERGARTENERS COMPLETELY BOMBED ON THET. THEY DON'T GET THAT THIS IS LESS EXPERTISE THAN THIS. AND SOMEHOW BETWEEN GRADE K AND SECOND GRADE, WE DON'T THINK A SHIFT. AND WE'LL GIVE YOU SOME OTHER EXAMPLES. I'M PUSHING FOR MORE WORK ON THE SCHOOL CHILDREN WITH ALL THE FANCY AND TODDLER WORK, WHEN IN FACT THERE IS MASSIVE CHANGES HAPPENING DURING THIS AGE PERIOD. BUT THIS IS LEAST BY SECOND GRADE EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE A SENSE OF WHERE THERE IS CAUSAL MEAT AND TEXTURE AND WHERE YOU NEED LEGITS MAT EXPERTS VERSUS THERE IS NO POINTS IN HAVING AN EXPERT WHEN THERE IS NOTHING GOING ON. THEY ARE PRETTY GOOD AT TRACKING RELATIVE COMPLEXITY. SO IF I GAVE YOU A WHOLE BUNCH OF ITEMS, SAY EVERYTHING RANGING FROM A TOAST TORE A 747 YET OR VERY SIMPLE BODY PARTS LIKE THUMBNAILS GOING UP TO EYES AND WE ASKED ON A 100-POINT SCALE HOW HARD IT IS TO FULLY SUNDAYS AND COMPLAIN THESE, THEY WE GET A HUGE AMOUNT OF RATING. IF WE WANT ADULT IN THIS, OUR MEASURES ARE 95 AND HIGHER AND YET WHEN YOU ASK AND LIST THE PARTS OF HOW THEY WORK, THEY ARE DREADFUL. SOMEHOW PEOPLE ARE VERY GOOD AT KNOWING THIS IS A HAIRY SYSTEM. THIS IS A COMPLICATED SYSTEM. I REMEMBER THAT. BUT THE DETAILS I DON'T HAVE. AND DOWN TO AGE 10 THEY NAIL THIS. BY AGE 5 THEY'RE QUITE TERRIBLE AT IT. DURING THE SCHOOL YEARS, THEY START TO GET A SENSE OF WHERE HOW COMPLEX THINGS ARE AND THE MORE COMPLEX THE MORE THEY DEFER. HOW MUCH YOU NEED AN EXPERT IS TOTALLY RELATED TO THE COMPLEXITY. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS HAPPENING DURING THE SCHOOL YEARS IS INCREASING UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE THERE IS RICH, CAUSAL STRUCTURE AND THEN HOW TO USE THAT AS A GUIDE TO WHEN YOU NEED TO DEFER TO OTHERS. ONE OF THE THINGS IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS TO UNDERSTAND CAUSAL COMPLEXITY. AND IT'S A REALLY COMPLEX PROCESS IN WHICH KIDS HAVE A START. FOR EXAMPLE, IN MANY CASES BY THE NUMBER PARTS. YOU MIGHT THINK THAT'S YOUR MEASURE OF COMPLEX JIT, BUT THEY KNOW I HAD A HARD TIME FINDING IT BUT THIS IS ONE WITH A LOUSY IMAGE. BUT THIS HAS THOUSANDS PARTS BUT NO KID THINKS IT'S COMPLICATED. COMPLEXITY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PARTS AND THEY SENSE THAT. HAVING SAID THAT, AND THEY ARE SENSITIVE TO ORDER. THEY ARE SENSITIVE TO ORDER VERSUS RANDOMNESS AND WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE. THEY UNDERSTAND IT'S TOO RANDOM. ALTHOUGH SOMETHING THEY HAVE GREAT DIFFICULTY WITH IS THINKING THAT IT'S COMPLICATED. OLDER KIDS AND ADULTS THINK IT'S COMPLICATED TO EXPLAIN HOW THEY WORK. YOUNG KIDS LOOK AT A BOOMER AND SANG THEY KNOW THEY FLY IN LOOPS BUT WHY THEY THINK IT'S SIMPLE? NO MOVING PARTS. WE CALL THIS UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME THINGS ARE COMPLICATED NOT BECAUSE THE DEVICE ITSELF HAS A LOT OF MACHINERY BUT TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT BEHAVES WITHIN ITS ENVIRONMENT IS A COMPLEX PROCESS. ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE INTERESTED IN IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE NUANCE COMPLEXITY GROWS DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR FROM AGE K TO GRADE 4. THERE ARE ALSO INTERESTING BIASES THAT PERSEVERE IN ADULTS. WE HAVE SHOWN -- IT'S A SOMEWHAT COMPLEX ARGUMENT -- THAT THERE IS A REDUCTIONIST BIAS. PEOPLE TEND TO THINK THAT PHYSICS IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN BIOLOGY ANDOLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE MORE COMPLICATED AND ECONOMIST IS THE SIMPLEST. AND WE SHOW THEM THIS GETS STRONGER AND STRONGER BUT STILL LEAVES SOME LEGACY IN ADULTS. AND THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY SAMPLES ARE WHERE PSYCHOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY IS SELF-EVIDENCE EVIDENT IN JUDGES AN ALLOWING EXPERT WITNESSES. THERE ARE SOME CASES HERE IN WASHINGTON WHERE THEY WANTED TO BRING IN BOB AND OTHERS OOH SOPHISTICATED MEMORY EXPERTS TO TALK ABOUT WHY IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHEN YOUR MEMORY IS DISGORDON AND THE ONE OF THE JUDGES SAID BASICALLY THIS IS PSYCHOLOGY. THIS IS SELF-EVIDENT. YOU DON'T NEED ANY EXPERT FOR THIS AND THIS IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE AND IT WAS RULED OUT. THERE ARE PRETTY GOOD EVIDENCE THAT IF THEY ARE STRONG BIASES TO SHOW THAT PEOPLE DISCOUNT COMPLEXITY MORE THAN THEY SHOULD. I THINK IF WE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS DRIVING OUR INTUITION OF COMPLEXITY BETTER, WE MIGHT HAVE A WAY OF EDUCATING THE PUBLIC WHERE ABOUT WHEN TO USE COMPLEXITY. KIDS ACTUALLY DISCOUNT BIOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY WHEN THEY'RE YOUNG. IT'S HARDER FOR THEM TO SEE WHEN YOU ARE A KINDERGARTENER WHY THE BODY IS AS COMPLICATED AS A CAR. IT'S A BAG OF STUFF, WHAT'S GOING ON SENATOR, IT TAKES A WHILE AND THAT'S INTERESTING WHAT THEY'RE LEARNING. I DON'T THINK MUCH OF IT COMES FROM SCHOOLING. I THINK THEY FIGURE IT OUT MORE INTUITIVELY. ANOTHER THING THAT HAPPENS IS KIDS ARE REMARKABLY GOOD OUTSOURCEERS OF KNOWLEDGE AND ARE RELYING ON OTHERS FOR THEIR KNOWLEDGE. THIS IS LEARNING FROM OTHERS, TESTIMONY AND STUFF LIKE THIS. AND ONE OF THE SIDE EFFECTS OF THAT IS WHAT PHILOSOPHER CALLED THE INDIVIDUALS AND BIAS TO THINK THAT WHEN THESE LONE RANGEERS OF ACQUISITION OF LEARNING HOW THE WORLD WORKS WITHOUT ANY HELP FROM OTHERS AND IN FACT WE DID THAT MASSIVEIVELY BUT WE CONFUSE WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT WE DEPEND ON OTHERS WITH NOMMING THAT WE HAVE ACQUIRED ON OUR OWN. SO WE THINK WE KNOW SOMETHING WHEN IN FACT REALLY IT'S ONLY IN SOMEONE ELSE'S MIND. LET ME GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF A STUDY ON WORD MEANINGS. ALL THE TIME WHEN WE USE WORDS, WE ARE REFERRING TO OBJECTS OUT THERE IN THE REAL WORLD. AND WHEN I SAY "OH, THAT'S A PIECE OF GOLD" WE THINK WE KNOW WHAT THE MEANING OF GOLD. THERE IS A STUDY OUT MANY YEARS AGO BY PUT NAM, WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT HOW GOLD WORKS MIGHT BE MUCH MORE PRIMITIVE. SO WE DID A STUDY WHERE WE HAD THREE KINDS OF WORD PAIRS, KNOWN SIMILARS, UNKNOWN SIMILARS AND PURE INCENTIVES. THE KNOWN SIMILARS ARE CLOSELY RELATED OBJECTS BUT ALMOST ALL LAY PEOPLE KNOW IT ENOUGH TO DISTINGUISH THEM. THE UNKNOWN SIMILARS ARE WORDS WHICH EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT, BUT WHEN YOU DETAIL THEM, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IS THE -- WHAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE. AND THEN THE KNOWN PURE SYNONYMS ARE THINGS LIKE CAR, COUCH, AUTOMOBILE AND MAY BE, INFANT. A TASK WAS TO GIVE A SCRAMBLE LIST AND SAY HOW MANY FEATURES DO YOU KNOW THAT CAN TELL THESE PAIRS APART? TELL US. AND THEN WE DID THAT QUITE A BITTING QUICKLY AND OF COURSE WE TESTED THEM. AND WHAT YOU FIND IS QUITE STUNNING. PEOPLE RATE THE UNKNOWN PAIRS, THE PAIRS JUST AS HIGH AS THEY DO THE ROW BOAT/CANOE. YET WHEN YOU ASK THEM TO LIST THEM FOR THE KNOWNS, THEY GIVE YOU ABSOLUTELY ZERO FOR THE UNKNOWNS. BUT THEY NODO KNOW THIS ANSWER BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHO TO ASK BUT THEY FORGET THAT THEY OUTSOURCE THE ACTUAL DETAILS. AND KIDS ARE WAY WORSE. THIS BASICALLY SHOWS THE MAGNITUDE OF THE DISCREPANCY AND ESPECIALLY BY KINDERGARTENERS. THEY THINK THEY KNOW ALL THE FEATURES AND VARIOUS ITEMS WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW ANY AT ALL. WHEN YOU ARE YOUNG BY SECOND GRADE THEY THINK THAT SYNONYMS HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS. AND I KNOW THEM. OF COURSE, WHEN YOU TEST THEM, THEY GET 0. HERE IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO ARGUE WITH BROAD STROKES WE WERE SENSITIVE TO MECH SDMICHL THAT'S A GOOD THING. WE USE THESE TO IDENTIFY DOMAINS OF EXPERTISE BUT WE ALSO USE THESE CAUSAL PATTERNS TO EVALUATE SCOMBREESHTHS AND TO EVALUATE SPLANGSZ. AND THESE ARE ALL INTERACT AND MAKE THEM MORE REFINED. SO THIS IS MY MOVED HOW THE WHOLE SYSTEM WORKS. I NORMALLY WILL TAKE THROUGH AN EXAMPLE OF EACH OF THESE TO ILLUSTRATE HOW KIDS ARE GOOD AT THIS AND WHERE THS WHERE IT LIES. HERE IS ONE THAT -- WE'RE JUST WRAPPING UP NOW. IF WE'RE GOOD AT KNOWING WHO AN EXPERT IS, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT PEOPLE CLAIMING TO KNOW SOMETHING IS NOT A SIGN OF KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERTISE. SOMETIMES CERTAINTY IS A SIGN OF IGNORANCE THAN SAYING YOU DON'T KNOW IS A SIGN OF WISDOM. BUT THERE MUST BE CASES WHERE BEING TENTATIVE OR BLOILD NOT KNOWING SOMETHING IS A SIGN OF MORE INSIGHT. HOW DOES THAT COME IN, AND WHAT MAKES YOU AWARE OF IT? ONE THING IS YOU ARE AWARE OF HOW THE STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD MOUNTS ON TO THE STRUCTURE OF KNOWLEDGE AND WHY SOME OF THOSE LINKAGES ARE GOING TO BE SUBTLE AND HARD TO MASTER AND THEREFORE UNCERTAINTY IS A BETTER STANCE TO HAVE AS AN EXPERT. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE. YOU CAN COUNT ALL THE BONDS AND ARIVE, HOW MANY DO YOU GET? ONE ALLEGED EXPERT SAYS THERE ARE SIX AND ANOTHER SAID I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION PRECISELY. ANOTHER SAYS I DON'T KNOW, BUT THE SECOND PERSON AND THE FIRST CASE IS THE FIRST PERSON. HOW DO YOU COME TO THAT KIND OF INSIGHT? CERTAIN THINGS ARE CAUSALLY STABLE AND LIKELY ACROSS THE SPECIES AND OTHERS ARE A PRODUCT OF -- IT'S INCREDIBLY CHANGING KIND OF ENVIRONMENT AND ANY POSITION HERE IS BOGUS. THEY TOTALLY GET WHAT'S KNOWABLE, BUT NOW WE GO THROUGH A RADICAL SHIFT BETWEEN KINDERGARTEN AND FOURTH GRADE, WHERE THE KIDS WHO ARE YOUNG HAVE GREAT DIFFICULTY SEEING THAT THAT CERTAINTY SHOULD BE OVERRULED. AS THEY START TO UNDERSTAND A BIT MORE ABOUT THE APPLAUSIBILITY OF CONNECTING KNOWLEDGE, THEY START TO RULE IT OUT. YOU MIGHT SAY WELL THAT'S CAUSE NUMERICAL CERTAINTY IS WE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND LARGE NUMBERS AND WE HAD VIRTUALLY NO NUMBERS AT ALL. WHAT COLORS WILL A RAINBOW HAVE ON APRIL 4TH AND ONE EXPERT SAID RED, ORANGE, YELLOW, GREEN, INDIGO AND VIOLENT VIOLET. VERSUS HOW LONG WILL THE PRESIDENT'S HAIR BE IN INCHES AND WE GET THE SAME KIND OF I DON'T KNOW VERSUS IT WILL BE DEFINITELY 15 INCHES LONG. SO THIS IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND PARTS OF SYSTEMS THAT ARE STABLE VERSUS MORE CHAOTIC AND DYNAMIC. AND WE REPLICATE THE RESULTS. THEY ARE ALMOST SUPERIMPOSABLE. AGAIN, THE YOUNG KIDS HAVE GREAT DIFFICULTY TO GET MORE INSIGHT INTO CAUSAL PATTERNS AND THEY SHIFT BY RADICAL. WE'VE ALSO MOUNTAIN AND THIS IS A CASE WHERE THERE IS LIST TO PICK ONE WHICH ONES ARE HELPFUL AND WHICH ONES ARE NOT. AND THESE ARE ALL TRUE, BUT SOME ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE CAR MOVING AND STOPPING, BUT THIS IS CLEARLY FALSE. WHAT YOU FIND IS THAT AGAIN, THIS IS DEVELOPMENTAL SHIFT THIS TIME BETWEEN KINDERGARTEN AND SECOND GRADE, WHERE THE YOUNGEST KIDS THINK IF IT'S TRUE, IT MUST BE RELEVANT TO THE CAUSAL EXPLANATION. WHEN THEY GET A BIT OLDER, THEY START TO SAY IT MAY BE TRUE BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPLAINING HOW A CAR MOVES. OKAY, SO WE KNOWNED EFFECT ACTUALLY SEVERAL TIMES, A ROBUST SHIFT BETWEEN KINDERGARTEN AND SECOND GRADE. BUT IS IT THE CASE THAT KIDS HAVE NO SENSE OF REFUSAL OR IT GETS TRUMPED BY THIS? AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO SHOW IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS IS THAT THERE IS A FRAGILE WAY FU JUST CHANGE THE TASK, WHICH IS, WE DID THEM AT PAIRS. WE SAY WHICH ONE OF THEM THESE IS -- WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS WE ARE KEEPING THE BOTH TRUE BUT THEY'RE ONE OF THESE IS RELEVANT AND ONE OF THESE IS NOT RELEVANT AND BOOM, THEY'RE WAY BOUFB THE THRESHOLD AND DOING VERY WELL. AND EVEN FOUR-YEAR-OLDS ARE NAILING THIS TASK. IT'S NOT THAT KIDS ARE UNABLE TO TRACK REFUSAL BUT THEY NEED A LOT OF HELP AND I THINK ONE THE PED GOINGICAL PRINCIPLES IS YOU MIGHT THINK THIS IS HARDER BUT IT HELPS GIVE US INSIGHT. A COUPLE MORE QUICK STUDIES I WANT TO GET TO. HERE IS A VERY SUBTLE KIDS THAT THING THAT KIDS ARE PICKING UP ON THAT WE ARE QUITE STUND THAT THEY CAN DO. EXPLANATION CAN BE AT VARIOUS LEVELS ABOUT ALL PHYSICAL THINGS OR SOMETHING THAT'S ONLY TRUE ABOUT TEAPOTS. THE SAME THING FOR BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. AND ADULTS HAVE STRONG PREFERENCE FORS GENERAL VERSUS SPECIFIC DOMAINS. IT'S SURPRISINGLY EARLY. HERE IS THE KIND OF TASK. SUICIDE HOW COME -- WE HAVE A PICTURE OF A PUFFER FISH AND WE SAY -- AN MALS HAVE A DRUM LIKE THIS. THESE ARE BETWEEN SUBJECTS. -- ACTUALLY, THIS IS WITHIN SUBJECTS AND ASKED WHICH ONE IS THE BEST EXPLANATION. WITH OR WE SAY HAT FELL TO THE GROUND. HOW COME A HAT FELL TO THE GROUND? WHAT'S THE BEST LEVEL OF EXPLANATION? WITH ADULTS YOU FIND SOMETHING QUITE SURPRISING, THAT ADULTS PREFER THE SPECIFIC. THEY WANT THE PUFFER FISH EXPLANATION. THEY DON'T WANT THE FISH OR ANIMALS. FOR THE OTHER OBJECTS THEY PREFER THE GENERAL. MOREOVER, IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT THERE ARE MORE EXCEPTIONS IN THE ANIMAL DO 1-800-. IT'S MORE SUBTLES THAN THAT. WHAT SEEMS TO BE HAPPENING IN ADULTS IS THEY THINK EACH SUBSTANTIAL SHAKINGS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. YOU WANT TO KNOW THE DETAILS OF EACH ORGANISM. SURELY THAT'S A SUBTLE INSIGHT THAT NO YOUNG KID WOULD HAVE AND YET HERE WE ARE WITH KINDERGARTENERS, THESE ARE PRE-K, FIVE YOIRLTDZ. WHO STRONGLY PREFER THE SPECIFIC EXPLANATIONS FOR THE BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS AND HAVE A SLIGHT BUT SIGNIFICANT PREFERENCE FOR THE GENERAL AND PHYSICAL. SOMEHOW THESE SAME KIDS WHO ARE COMPLETELY EMPTY IN TERMS OF MECHANISM ARE ALREADY DEVELOPING EXPECTATIONS ABOUT WHAT KIND OF EXPLANATION THESE PREFER AND THEY VARY THOSE. OKAY, LAST BIT OF DATA. AND THIS INCLUDES RECENT STUFF WE'VE BEEN DOING AND IT BEARS ON HEALTH-RELATED SCIENCE LITERACY. WE'VE GOTTEN INTEREST ON THE QUESTION OF HOW PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE EV CASTIFF MEDICINE AND HOW THEY WORK ON BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS AND WHAT WE'RE LEARNING IS THAT PEOPLE, EVEN YOUNG KIDS, HAVE CAUSAL HUNCHES. THEY DON'T GO INTO SITUATIONS BLIND. THEY USUALLY DEVELOP CAUSAL HUNCHES, BUT THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS WRONG. SOMETIMES THEY ARE WRONG AND THEY GET IT RIGHT. BUT SOMETIMES THEY ARE BETTER WHEN THEY ARE YOUNGER. NOT JUST THEY ARE CLUSLESS. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE. A PERSON HAS A PROBLEM WITH A KIDNEY AND THEY TAKE A MEDICINE AND THEY GET BETTER. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? DID THE MEDICINE WHEN YOU ATTACK PILL, FOR EXAMPLE, GO IN THE MOUTH AND GO STRAIGHT TO WART FLIX IS AND NOWHERE ELSE OR DID IT GO EVERYWHERE EQUALLY THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE BODY? THE SIX-YEAR-OLDS HAVE A MISGUIDED BUT INTERESTING IDEA THAT THESE ARE CRUISE MISSILE THAT'S ZONE IN ON THE AFFECTED AREA AND AVOIDS EVERYTHING ELSE. THEY ARE WORKING ON DIRECTED INTENTIONAL AGENTS AND THIS APPLIES IN THIS CASE. SO WHAT I WOULD ARGUE IS RATHER THAN THINKING OF KIDS HAVING MISCONCEPTIONS, SHOW -- THEM. FU THINK IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH PILLS, HERE IS THE SAME DATA WITH THE SHOTS. THIS IS A CASE WHERE THEY'VE EXTRACTED CAUSAL PATTERNS FROM THE WORLD AND MAYBE THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. BUT AS YOU GET MORE KNOWLEDGE, IT A STARTS TO SHIFT. BUT HERE IS THE CASE WHERE THE KIDS ARE MORE CORRECT THAN ADULTS AND OTHER KIND OF STUFF INTERVENES. WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT, BUT HERE IS THE IDEA. WHAT HAS MORE EFFICACY, A DRUG WITH PAINFUL SIDE EFFECTS OR ONE WITH MINIMAL SIDE EFFECTS? IT SHOULD BE EITHER CHANCE OR HOPEFULLY MAYBE THE ONE THAT HAS MINIMAL SIDE EFFECTS. BUT IF YOU ARE A PARTICIPANT AND YOU ARE YOUNG YOU THINK WELL YOU KNOW IT'S BETTER IF IT HAS NO PAIN. BY THE TIME YOU ARE 8 TO 10E YEARS OLD AND EVEN ADULTS, NO PAIN, NO GAIN. IT'S GOT TO HURT TO WORK, WHICH IS A TERRIBLE VIEW OF MEDICINE. THEY'VE PICKED UP A SCHEMA FROM THEIR CULTURE, UNAWARE, WHICH IS UNFORTUNATELY KIND OF ERRONEOUS AND IT ILLUSTRATES THAT SOMETIMES TO WORK GET IN THE WAY OF WEIRD DISTORTIONS. THAT'S JUST REPEATING THAT. THESE ARE THE SLIDES THAT I AM GOING TO THROW OUT FOR DISCUSSION. WHAT SHOULD YOU BE TEACHING WHEN YOU DO SCIENCE EDUCATION? YOU SHOULD ATTACK THE MECHANISM BUT YOU SHOULDN'T EXPECT THEM TO HOLD ON TO MECHANISM. YOU DON'T WANT TO TEACH THEM SO THAT YOU CAN TEST THEM LATER, BUT RATHER IT'S A VEHICLE FOR MORE EN DURING TYPES OF CAUSAL MEMORIES. THE MECHANISM MAY BE THE BEST WAY TO SERVE UP REPRESENTATION. SURPRISINGLY ABSTRACT AND DWURS ONES AND IN MANY CASES KIDS GO FROM THE ABSTRACT TO THE CONCRETE. WE HAVE SOME MYTH THAT KIDS START OFF WITH CONCRETE KNOWLEDGE AND THEY GO TO ABSTRACT KNOWLEDGE. THAT'S NOT TRUE. WE SHOULDN'T, WHEN WHEN HE TEACH MECHANISM, CONNECT IT TO OTHER LEVELS AND HOW IT RELATES TO COMPLEXITY AND CAUSAL POWERS SO THAT THEY CAN MORE EASILY MAKE THE TRANSITION TO OTHER REPRESENTATIONS. WE SHOULD PROBABLY ALSO TEACH THEM HOW TO USE CAUSAL PATTERNS TO LOCATE EXPLANATIONS. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO RETAIN IT BUT THEY SHOULD USE IT TO EVALUATE IT. YOUNG KIDS ARE STARTING TO DO THIS AUTOMATICALLY. AND THAT'S BEEN THE SURPRISING RESULTS OF. OUR STUDIES. WE SHOULD BE BUILDING ON THESE TENDENCIES RATHER THAN JUST IGNORING THEM. HOW TO TEACH? WELL, I THINK IT'S USUALLY NEGLECTED. THE KREB STUDY, WHICH IS STUNNING TO US, YOU THINK YOU I KNOW HOW TO TEACH WHEN YOU TEACH BIOLOGY. IN 99 PERCENT OF THE CASES, ALL THAT CONCRETE STUFF HAS VANISHED BUT THE IT'S BECAUSE WE'RE MEASURING THE WRONG OUTCOME. SO IT MEANS HAVING THESE MORE ABSTRACTS AND BEING ABLE TO DIVE NO A PHENOMENA BUT NOW IT'S RETAINING ALL THESE DETAILS. AND I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT COMPETENCIES TO BUILD ONLY AND NOT LOOK AT ALL THESE MODELS AND START OVER FROM A BLANK SLATE. THIS IS A SIDE NOTE BUT I WANT TWOOINT CONFERENCE IN BOSTON A FEW MONTHS AGO, WHICH GOT ME INTERESTED IN THE IDEA THAT I THINK OFTEN TEACHING SCIENCE IS ACTUALLY VERY VALUABLE FOR A SURPRISING REASON. IN OTHER WORDS, TALKING ABOUT THE SCIENTIST AND HOW SHE DISCOVERED SOMETHING AND ALL THE TEAMS AND WORK MAY HELP CLEAR UP SOME OF THESE ISSUES OF THE ILLUSIONS OF INDIVIDUALS AND START TO REALIZE JUST HOW MUCH IT WAS A TEAM EFFORT AND THIS OTHER KNOWLEDGE THIS PERSON WAS DEFERRING TO. I THINK ACTIVE INTERVENTION IS A CAUSAL PATTERN; BUT OFTEN THE BEST WAY TO SEE CAUSEALITY IS TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM. AND FINALLY THESE CONTRASTS THINK ARE VERY IMPORTANT. WE HIGHLIGHT PATTERNS VERSUS MERE FACTS AND POINT THEM OUT. THERE IS ALL THIS TALK AND SLOGANS ABOUT DOCTORS AND PATIENTS AND DECISION MAKING. WE'RE GOING SIT DOWN AT A TEAM, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AT ALL. AND SHOULD IT HAPPEN, WHAT SHOULD WE BE TEACHING THE PATIENTS? WE BELIEVE THIS IS IMPORTANT, BUT WHAT LEVEL OF CAUSAL? HOW ABOUT EVALUATION SKILLS? WHAT'S FEASIBLE FOR MOST OF THE PUBLIC? WHEN THESE A PEOPLE GO OUT ON THE INTERNET, WHAT TOOLS CAN WE GIVE THEM TO HELP THEMMING FIGURE OUT HOW TO EVALUATE THE INFORMATION BETTER? I'M LOOKING AT THESE QUESTIONS. I'LL SKIP OVER THIS. SO THAT'S IT. I AM GOING TO GO TO QUESTIONS. [APPLAUSE] DON'T BE SHY. I GAVE THE VIDEOGRAPHER A NIGHTMARE BY WALKING AROUND TOO MUCH. >> SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE HAVE IN MEDICINE IS THAT THE FACTS CHANGE ON A DAILY BASIS. SO I'D SAY GET RID OF THE EFFECTS AND TEACH THAT KNOWLEDGE IS -- BUT TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO EVALUATE THE KNOWLEDGE AS NEW KNOWLEDGE COMES IN. HOW DOES THAT FIT WITH YOUR^--{}I THINK IT FITS VERY WELL, BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE THE MECHNISTIC KNOWLEDGE DECAYS. WHAT YOU ARE LEARNING ABOUT THESE PATTERNS ARE PROBABLY TRUE SO IN MOST SYSTEMS SOME OF THE NOTIONS ABOUT HOMIO STASIS, THOSE ARE GOING TO ENDURE. KNOWING OF HAVING REGULATORY CASCADES IN GENOMIC SYSTEMS TURNS OUT TO HAVE ALL KINDS OF CONSEQUENCES. THEN AS YOU TRY TO STRUGGLE THROUGH A LITERATURE, YOU CAN KNOW BETTER. WHEN YOU HEAR ABOUT SOME NEW DISCOVERY, LIKE THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE PAPER TODAY, CLAIMING THAT PLACENTAL IRREGULARITIES CAN TELL YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOUR KIDS ARE GOING TO BE AUTISTIC. I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT AND I WANT TO BE EQUIPPED TO ASK THE RIGHT KINDS OF QUESTIONS AND I ARGUE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TEACH. WE CAN LOOK AT COHERENT IN THE ARGUMENTS AND HOW DISPARATE IS THE INFORMATION? WAVE SENSE OF AN EXPLANATION. WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE HISTORICAL FACTS, BUT WE DO NEED TO HAVE SOME SENSE OF THE TEXTURE AND WHAT'S APPROPRIATE. SNIFFING OUT IS WHAT WE WANT TO WORK ON. YE YES? >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TALK. >> SURE. >> THAT WAS VERY INTERESTING. ONE THING I'M CURIOUS ABOUT, IN PERSONAL LEVEL ABOUT THE IO EDS, LIKE OH, MAN, I AM PROBABLY LIKE THAT AND SO I AM WONDERING DO YOU THINK IN ADDITION TO EDUCATING KIDS FOR THEM TO KNOW THAT THEY NATURALLY MAKE THOSE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE -- DO YOU THINK THAT THAT -- >> NIM ANOTHER PROJECT CALLED INTELLECTUAL HUMILIATITY PROJECT, WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW THE VALUE OF HAVING SOME HUMILITY IN TERMS OF YOUR OWN INTELLECTUAL ENDOWMENT. IT'S TRICKY, BECAUSE DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO GET DISCOURAGED AND DEPRESSED, SO WE'RE TRYING TO SAY YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF HOW BAD YOU ARE, BUT BE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT HOW MUCH YOU COULD LEARN. YEAH, I'M VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN THAT QUESTION, AND I THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ONE. I THINK IT'S GOOD TO KNOW YOUR LIMITATIONS. I AM DISCOURAGED BY THE STUDY WE HAVE COMING OUT COMING OUT THAT THE MORE YOU CARE THE WORST YOU ARE AT THAT. I WAS HOPING IT WOULD BE THE OTHER WAY, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE CONSTRUE THAT'S KIND OF DISCOURAGING. GOT THING NEWS IS I THINK KIDS MIGHT BE A BETTER PLACE TO INTERVENE AND TO GET THESE SKILLS SET UP EARLIER TO EVALUATE, IT MIGHT BE MORE ROBUST. YES? >> ISN'T IT BECAUSE YOU CAN LIVE AN IGNORANT LIFE SUCCESSFULLY AND A LOT OF THIS TESTING AND STUDY THAT GOES ON IN SCHOOL IS LARGELY FOR THOSE PURPOSES, TO PASS A TEST AND FOR ADVANCING AND FOR JOBS, NOT NECESSARILY NEEDING TO UNDERSTAND. YOU CAN LIVE IN A PERFECTLY FINE WORLD WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING. >> YEAH. >> IT DOESN'T SCOMBLAEFRMENT >> SO THAT'S -- THERE IS A COUPLE OF GREAT QUESTIONS. AND ONE IS WHAT SHOULD WE BE TESTING IN THE SXIELZ WON'T GET INTO THAT. I'M UNANTI-TESTS. I THINK WE'RE WAY TOO LAZY ABOUT THE KINDS OF TESTS WE CONSTRUCT. THE DEEPER QUESTION IS WHY BOTHER? WE A SEEM TO GET BY FINE WITHOUT IT. I AM NOT SURE THAT -- THIS IS DAN, ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES AND LAW SCHOOL HAS SOME AMAZING STUDIES SHOWING THAT SOMETIMES EXTREME CAUSAL KNOWLEDGE DOESN'T NECESSARILY RESULT IN GREATER INSIGHT. IT CAN SUPPORT YOUR POSITION. SO THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE GLOBAL WARMING DENYERS WHO HAVE A HUGE CAUSAL KNOWLEDGE TO BACK IT UP WITH. THEY ARE VERY JUDICIOUS. SO IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT GIVING PEOPLE MORE CAUSAL INFORMATION IS A CURE FOR MORE REASON TO KIND OF COGNITION AND DEBATE. I DON'T THINK IT CAN BE BUT THAT'S A WISH AND A HOPE RIGHT NOW RATHER THAN A DEMONSTRATION. SO THE HONEST ANSWER IS WE DON'T KNOW YET THAT THE PUBLIC WILL BE A BIT MORE RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC, A BETTER INFORMED PUBLIC OR ANYTHING ELSE. I'D LIKE TO THINK SO AND ACADEMICS ARE KIND OF WASTING OUR TIME. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I'D LIKE TO THINK -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I'D LIKE TO THINK SO, BUT I THINK IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A COMBINATION WITH SOME OTHER SKILLS SETS, INCLUDING THIS NOTION OF ARGUING TO LEARN VERSUS ARGUING TO WIN. IT'S GOING TO BE A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGSING TO, NOT JUST ONE. SO I THINK JUST HAVING A CAUSAL, RICH CAUSAL ABILITY MIGHT NOT BE ENOUGH BECAUSE YOU CAN DISTORT AND USE THAT -- I THINK YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY FIGURE OUT HOW TO DEPLOY DID AND BE SORT OF GUIDED. I THINK IT'S COMPLICATED. TWO YEARS IG WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU YEAH, GIVE THEM CAUSAL UNDERSTANDING AND EVERYTHING WILL BE GROOVY BUT I'M BEGINNING TO BE CONVINCED IT'S NOT THAT EASY. >> GREAT TALK. MY QUESTION. YOU SHOWED US A LOT OF SHIFTS IN YOUR STUDY WHAT IS THE MECHANISM, DO YOU THINK -- >> I THINK IN ALMOST ALL CASES THESE ARE NOT STAGES. I THINK THESE ARE USUALLY SHIFTING AND A KID SUCH AS TRUTH AND CERTAINTY, THEY CAN DETECT REFUSAL FU MAKE IT. SO I THINK IT'S CHANGING AND THIS NOTION OF CHANGING ACCESS. SOME THINGS ARE MORE ACCESSIBLE IN DWERL DEVELOPMENT THAN OTHERS AND DID I SOME WORK IN BIOLOGY SHOWING THAT YOUNG KIDS -- SO THERE IS THIS DEBATE ABOUT VERY BIOLOGY CLAIMING THAT YOUNG KIDS DON'T HAVE BIOLOGY AND THEY THINK OF IT IN TERMS OF PSYCHOLOGY. AND IF YOU MAKE IT SAILIENT, THEY CAN TRACK BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL STUFF AS WELL. MY INTERPRETATION IS VERY OFTEN IT'S SIMPLY THE WAY THEY LEARN SOMETHING SO THAT THEY COULD WEIGH IT MORE HEAVILY. SO IN THE CASE OF THE CERTAINTY CASE, I THINK THAT IF YOU SERVE TUP CAREFULLY ENOUGH, THEY CAN UNDERSTAND IT AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS IS TO TRY TO GET AT THIS MORE FRAGILE VERSION AND GROW IT. I THINK OFTEN THESE THINGS ARE MORE FRAGILE AND LESS AVAILABLE AND YOU HAVE GOT TO MAKE THEM MORE SALINE. >> THANK YOU. >> I AM UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE IS REALLY A PROBLEM -- [INAUDIBLE] >> NOT IN FINLAND, BUT WE HAVE ONE HERE. >> NO, I THINK EVERYWHERE. >> NO, I'M JUST JOKING. >> A SCIENTIFIC NOTING WHICH YOU ARE LOOKING FOR -- [INDISCERNIBLE] SO SCIENTISTS KNOW THAT THEY NEED TO BE PROVEN RIGHT AND PROVEN WRONG WHEN THEY'RE WRONG. WE HAVE THIS AUA ABOUT SCIENCE AND FU READ IT IN THE JOURNAL, YOU THINK IT'S CORRECT AND A LOT OF TIMES IT'S JUNK. >> I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I AM NOT A BIG FAN OF TEACHING JUST THE METHODOLOGY OF SCIENCE, WHICH IS SOME SCIENCE CURRICULUM TEACH THE CONTROL OF VARIABLE STRATEGIES AND TEACH THEM ALL THE METHODOLOGY AND STUFF. IT'S STOO, TOO, STERILE AND UNINTERESTING. YOU'VE GOT GET THEM INTO THE PHENOMENA ITSELF AND SAY WAIT A MINUTE, HOW DO WE KNOW THIS IS RIGHT AND PRESENT THEM WITH FAILURES AND DIFFICULTIES. I THINK THERE ARE SOME WHO WOULD SAY IT'S TOO HARD. JUST FOCUS ON THE METHODOLOGY AND FU DO THAT IT'S TOO UNINTERESTING. I THINK YOU HAVE TO GET THEM FASCINATING AND SAY HOW DO WE KNOW FOR SURE THIS IS REALLY TRUE? SO YOU'VE GOT TO DO BOTH. >> THAT SORT OF LEADS INTO MY QUESTION IS HOW DOES WHAT YOU SAID TALKING ABOUT TODAY RELATE TO THE IDEA OF INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE VERSUS DISCOVERY-BASED? >> SO THIS IS DAVE COLLARS' ANSWER AND HE DID WORK ON THIS EXTENSIVELY. I THINK COMPLETELY UNSTRUCTURED DISCOVERY IS RARELY PROFITABILITY. YOU'VE FOUGHT TO PUT SOME CONSTRAINTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OR ELSE THERE IS TOO MUCH RANDOM SEARCH ANDING WALKING. ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK ENGAGING IN TRANGZ ACTIONAL KIND OF DISCUSSIONS, ENGAGING IN TRYING TO MARSHAL EVIDENCE AND MAKE EVIDENCE, GOING PACK AND FORTH IS A VERY VALUABLE COGNITIVELY AND JUST THROWING STUFF AT SOMEONE DIDACT SCLIS HARD TO DO. SO I DO THINK THAT YOU JUST CAN'T KEEP GOING ONE WAY IN A SORT OF DIDACTIC KIND OF INSTRUCTION. BUT IT'S CHAOTIC. I ACTUALLY THINK THERE IS A ROLE FOR GIVING INSTRUCTION -- BUT THERE IS LOTS OF WORK ON THIS SHOWING THAT PEOPLE WAY UNDERVALUE THE TEACHING AND THAT'S THE WAY I INTERPRET THE STUDIES. BUT IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT SMART TO GO ON FOR 70 MINUTES, OR I DID FOR 45 MINUTES WITHOUT INTERACTIONS. SORR SORRY. >> I WANT TO DEFEND THE PRINCIPLE OF NO PAIN, NO GAIN. IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY REASONABLE APPROACH IN BIOLOGY IS THAT IF SOMETHING HAS AN EFFECT STRONG ENOUGH TO PRODUCE GOOD EFFECTS, IT PROBABLY ALSO HAS BEAD EFFECTS. >> MY DAD ALWAYS TAUGHT ME THAT ALL MEDICINES ARE POISONS. >> RIGHT, EXACTLY. AND THEN PAIN IS THE VERY FIRST BAD EFFECT. AND IN ADULTS IT'S REASONABLE TO SAY THAT SOMETHING THAT REALLY WORKS MIGHT HURT. BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE IN MANY CASES. IT CLEARLY CAN BE MISLEADING. I DON'T THINK THAT -- I AM TRYING TO THINK OF IAYE GOOD EXAMPLE. STEROIDS DON'T HURT AND THEY CAN BE -- >> AND -- >> I THINK THEY OVERUSE. T. AND THERE ARE GOING TO BE CASES WHERE KIDS -- ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE INTERESTED IN IS INCREASING SELF-MEDICATION BY YOUNG KIDS. KIDS ON ASTHMA AND ADD MEDICINES AND STUFF. IF THEY ARE MAKING IMPARTIAL JUDGMENTS, IN SOME SITUATIONS THEY MAY BE BETTER OFF THAN THEIR OLDER PEERS. >> [INAUDIBLE] YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. >> GOING BACK TO THE ASPECT OF HOW SOCIETY ITSELF IN GENERAL IS AFFECTED BY UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE. I THINK WHAT IT IS IS THAT THERE IS A COMMON NARRATIVE THAT'S SHARED BY EVERYTHING HISTORICALLY OF HOW WE CAME, TOO, TO BE WHAT WE ARE TODAY AND UNDERSTAND THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO KNOW THE DETAILS OF A KREB CYCLE BUT WE KNOW SOMEWHERE IN THE BACK OF OUR MIND HOW SHOWER RESPONSE BE TO THOSE CHEMICALS THAT MAKE A MUSCLE FUNCTION. >> HERE IS MY CLAIM. YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE KREB CYCLE BUT YOU WANT TO HAVE SEEN IT TO HAVE SOME SENSE OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THE MACHINERY AND THAT'S WHY YOU WANT TO TEACH THE MECHANISM. THAT'S RIGHT. PART OF SOCIETY FU SHARE THIS INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE THIS KNOWLEDGE. IF THE YOU ARE -- IT'S A NARRATIVE THAT WE ALL SHARE. >> YOU ALSO WANT TO KNOW WHO TO CHECK WITH. IF YOU DID KNOW ABOUT THE KREB CYCLE, YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE THE REFUSAL OF EXPERTISE IS AND THAT'S WHY THIS HE CAN MECHANISM IS SO IMPORTANT. YOU WANT TO LEARN COMPLEXITY OF HAVING PLOT THE MECHANISM. IF YOU JUST SAID THE KREB CYCLE IS COMPLICATED, I DON'T THINK THEY'D GET IT BUT FU SHOW THEM HOW IT WORKS AND OH, MY GOD LOOK AT ALL THAT. >> THAT'S RIGHT AND THE ASPECT OF HOW PEOPLE WENT AROUND AFFECT HOW THEY WORKED IT OUT. >> THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S QUITE IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT TELLS YOU HOW MUCH THEY WERE DEPENDING ON OTHER MINDS, IT WASN'T JUST THEM ALONE. >> WE'RE A DIFFERENT SOCIETY BECAUSE WE KNOW THE KREB CYCLE AND NOT NECESSARILY DETAILED BUT WE KNOW -- >> WE KNOW AS A GROUP, AS A COLLECTIVE. YEAH. >> SO THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, AT LEAST IN COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY BETWEEN RECOGNITION AND RECALL. AND YOU ARE CLEARLY IDENTIFYING A FAILURE OF RECALL, BUT YOU ALSO IDENTIFY THE FAILURE OF RECOGNITION AND THAT'S WORRISOME TO ME BECAUSE IT'S THIS NOTION THAT IF YOU SEE IT ONCE YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO REMEMBER IT VERBATIM ON THE SPOT. BUT IF SOMEBODY SHOWS IT TO YOU, YOU WILL SAY OH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, I REMEMBER NOW. AND SO RECOGNITION IS OFF. >> YEAH, UNFORTUNATELY IT IS. THEY MIGHT RECOGNIZE THE LEVEL OF GRANULARITY AND THEY'RE NOT VERY GOOD IN THE KREB CYCLE. THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT THERE. BUT THEY ARE PRETTY BAD. AND THE BICYCLE STUDY, WHICH IS STUNNING, THAT'S A RECOGNITION STUDY AND 50 PERCENT ERROR RATES. UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK WE HAVE THIS ILLUSION THAT I'LL KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT. IT'S NOT TRUE. >> BUT THEN THAT LEADS ME TO THE NEXT QUESTION. THERE IS ALSO SOME AREAS THAT LEAD THEM TOWARDS THE IDEA OF EXPERT ABILITY, MEANING THAT YOU ONCE HAD THE KNOWLEDGE, HAD FORGOTTEN IT, BUT THEN SCAFFOLD IT JUST IN TIME WHEN YOU NEED THE EXPERTISE, YOU BASICALLY RAE CHOIR THE EXPERTISE. AND THE FAILURE OF RECALL SUGGESTS -- RECOGNITION SUGGESTS TO ME THAT THOSE JUST IN TIME SCAFFOLDING THINGS -- >> THEY ARE GOING TO WORK ON HAVING HAVE THESE OTHER ABSTRACT OF RECOGNITION. I KNOW THIS IS A SYSTEM WHERE HOMIO STASIS IS IMPORTANT. I KNOW THAT THIS IS THE ORDER OF COMPLEXITY Y SO I KNOW A BUNCH OF STUFF ABOUT THIS. I KNOW THIS IS A SYSTEM THAT CONVERTS ENERGY FROM LIGHT INTO DMRUKOSE. I HAVE SOME GENERAL IDEAS HERE. I ALSO KNOW ABOUT THE FUNCTIONAL ARCHITECTURE OF THE SYSTEM AND NOW I CAN A REACQUIRE IT. I DO THINK THAT ACTUALLY JUST IN TIME IDEA IS A REALLY GOOD ONE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. BUT WHAT WE'RE USING MENTALLY TO DO THAT I THINK MAYBE YOU'RE RIGHT. I DON'T THINK WE USE WHAT WE THINK WE'RE USING. >> QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE ONE REALLY QUICK ONE. >> SURE. >> I WAS INTERESTED IN YOUR MENTIONING LEARNING -- ARGUING TO LEARN VERSUS ARGUING TO WIN. >> RIGHT. >> AND -- >> SURE. SO THIS IS WORK FISH WHO HAS THESE NICE STUDIES SHOWING THAT, IF I PUT YOU IN A SITUATION WHERE -- THIS IS ONE OF THE PARADIGMS -- YOU COME IN TO A LAB AND I SAY "OKAY, YOU ARE GOING TO GO AND ARGUE ABOUT THIS TOPIC WITH SOMEONE ELSE, ALL RIGHT? AND YOU CAN GET TO PICK WHO YOU ARE GOING TO ARGUE AGAINST."^ IN ONE CIRCUMSTANCE YOU GET TO GO IN THE ROOM ALL BY YOURSELF AND ARGUE WITH THIS PERSON, WHO DO YOU WANT TO ARGUE WITH? THEN YOU WANT TO ARGUE WITH THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON YOU CAN BECAUSE YOU WANT TO LEARN. IF INSTEAD I TELL YOU GO IN THE ROOM AND THERE ARE 12 PEOPLE WHO WILL TAKE NOTES AS YOU GO, THEN THEY'D PICK THE MOST INCOMPETENT PERSON BECAUSE THEY WANT TO CREAM THEM. AND WE CAN CAUSE HUGE FLIPS. AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE DON'T HAVE THIS EVIDENCE YET LOCKED DOWN, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THESE ARE ALMOST INCOMPATIBLE SYSTEMS. IT'S VERY HARD TO GO TO A CIRCUMSTANCE TWURNT WIN AND LEARN. IT'S A CASE WHERE LAWYERS MAKING CASES WHERE THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH. THEY JUST WANT TO MAKE THE CASE FOR THE CLIENT TO WIN. WE'VE FOUND SITUATIONAL VARIABLES THAT -- ONE OF THE INTERESTING QUESTIONS IS IN DEVELOPMENT FU WENT BACK IN AGE, WHICH IS THE DEFAULT BIAS? AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WE KNOW THIS FOR SURE. WE DID ONE STUDY BUT IT HAD FLAWS. BUT THE SURPRISING AND WONDERFUL THING IT LOOKS LIKE YOUNG KIDS IS ARGUE TO LEARN, NOT ARGUE TO WIN. BUT THE STUDY HAS SOME FLAWS. WE HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT. BUT THAT WOULD BE KIND OF COOL AND I THINK IT MAKES SENSE. BECAUSE IF YOU ARE A FIVE-YEAR-OLD AND YOU ARE ARGUING TO WIN, YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE EVERY TIME, UNLESS YOU ARE ARGUING DEPENDENCE A THREE-YEAR-OLD. I THINK ARGUING RIGHT, THE RIGHT WAY IS AMAZINGLY PRODUCTIVE WAY TO LEARN. BUT ARGUING THE WRONG WAY, EVEN FU WIN, YOU CAN BECOME DOING NATTIC. AND AND WE HAVE SOME OTHER WORK SUGGESTING THAT'S TRUE, THAT IF YOU'RE NAN ADULT-TO-WIN MINDSET, YOU ACTUALLY SEE THE TRUTH IS BLACK AND WHITE AND WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK SHOWING THAT YOU THINK THERE IS NO SUBJECTIVITY TO THE QUESTION. SO IT INVOLVES NUANCES. >> INTERESTING. >> OKAY, ONE MORE QUESTION PACK HERE. >> [INAUDIBLE] THIS GOES BACK TO YOUR FIRST SLIDE AND RESEARCH. [INAUDIBLE] MECHNISTIC EXPLANATION AND HIS GUESS I WAS CURIOUS ONLY BECAUSE I HAD THIS IDEA THAT THERE WAS A CERTAIN -- [INAUDIBLE] >> I'VE WORKED ON THAT STUFF. >> I AM SO CURIOUS, THAT IT'S JUST NOT TRUE? >> NO, NO NO,. EXPLANATIONS ARE ALSO PREFERRED, BUT THEY DON'T EXCLUDE MECHANISM INFORMATION. I HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TAKE ON IT. I THINK EVEN THOUGH KIDS LIKE KREB ROCKIES, THEY STILL PREFER THEM FOR BLAH.^ ONE OF THE RESULTS WE GOT WHICH CAME OUT A FEW YEARS AGO, IS THAT THEY KNOW IN TERMS OF SPONTANEOUS QUESTIONS THAT THEY ASK, THEY WILL ASK YOU IF THEY SEE AND SAY WHAT'S IT FOR FOR THE WHOLE OBJECT. YOU SHOW THEM ANOTHER ANIMAL AND THEY SAY -- THEY DON'T SAY WHAT'S IT FOR BUT THEY ASK YOU WHAT THE PARTS ARE FOR. THEY KNOW AS PRESKEERLZ, THIS IS A VERY ABSTRACT IDEA, THAT EXPLANATIONS WORK FOR WHOLE ARTIFACTS, BUT ONLY FOR PARTS OF LIVING KINDS. AND NOW THEN THEY LINK THAT TO MECHANISM AS WELL. SO I THINK IT'S A GROUNDED MECHANISM >> ALL RIGHT. UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THERE IS ONE MORE. >> THIS IS A QUEEN MINDSET. I'D LIKE TO BRING UP ANOTHER EXAMPLE IN SCIENCE WITH THE DISCOVERY OF -- [INAUDIBLE] >> ACTUALLY, I WAS INVOLVED IN THAT PROJECT, POOR PERSON >> THIS IS PROBABLY WRONG -- ---ING AT ALL THE NEW JIERNGS WHICH IS THE TYPE OF THING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE. >> YES. >> HOW DO YOU TEACH THAT, THOUGH,? I TAUGHT MY UNDERDPRATS THAT IF THEY ARE NOT ONCE A MONTH SURPRISED AND THINK THEY UNCOVERED SOMETHING, THEY LEARNED SOMETHING THAT THEY THOUGHT THAT IS TRUE THAT'S NOT TRUE, THEY ARE NOT WORKING HARD ENOUGH. SO I THINK YOU SHOULD ALWAYS BE WILLING TO -- I DO THIS AS A TEST TO MYSELF. ALL THE STUFF THAT I READ IN THE LAST MONTH, DID I FIND MYSELF MINDSIDED BY SOMETHING AND I HOPE THAT I HAVE. IF YOU ARE CONFIRMING YOUR FIXED EMPLOYEES OF, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG FOR THAT TO BE TRUE. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> I THINK CONFESSION AND YOU MOTIVATE THEM. THE REALLY COOL THING IS SOMETIMES YOU ARE SURPRISED AND IT'S COOL. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO. PUI HAVEN'T THOUGHT -- THAT'S AN INTERESTING RESEARCH PROJECT TO WANT TO BE PROVEN WRONG. AND YEAH, I THINK THAT'S COOL. I'M HOPING THIS ADULT-TO-LEARN MENTALITY, MIGHT ACTUALLY BE CURIOSITY THAT LOVES THAT AND NOT BEING INSECURE AND LOOKING STUPID. I AM A BIG FAN OF THE INCREDIBLE TOOL THAT VERY YOUNG KIDS HAVE, THAT WILL BE GREAT BY SCIENCE AND SOMEHOW THEY DON'T GET TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. {}IS THERE A JOY TO SPECTULE SURPRISE AND PROMOTE THAT JOY AS THE -- AS A VALUE? >> YEAH. >> PERSONAL VALUE? >> IT'S THE SAME POINT. ABSOLUTELY. I WILL MAKE A SLIGHT CAVEAT, THOUGH.^ THERE IS A WONDERFUL ESSAY BY RICHARD DAWKINS. YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE JUST SHOWTELL, GEE WHIZ, SCIENCE SASS LIKE A MAGIC SHOW. YOU WANT IT TO BE A SURPRISE THAT COMES FROM HARD WORK AND HE MAKES AT NALGY THAT LEARNING TO PLAY THE VIOLIN. YOU NEED TO DEVELOP SOME REAL SKILLS TO APPRECIATE THE BEAUTY OF THE MUSIC. YOU NEED TO DEVELOP SOME REAL SKILLS TO REALIZE THE BEAUTY OF SURPRISE. WHY WAS IT INTERESTING TO DISCOVERY THAT IT DIDN'T EXIST? YOU HAVE TO HAVE A WHOLE STORY TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS SO SURPRISING AND INTERESTING AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS. YOU CAN'T APPRECIATE A DEEP SURPRISE UNLESS YOU'VE DONE THE HARD WORK. YEAH, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY YOU ARE. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I THINK IT'S A SURPRISINGLY GOOD SHOT. >> SO IN THINKING ABOUT ARGUING TO WIN VERSUS ARGUING TO LEARN AND THINKING ABOUT THE NOTION THAT ALL HUMANS, BUT ESPECIALLY YOUNG CREATURES, DO STATISTICAL LEARNING, IT WAS -- IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE PROBATE REINFORCEMENT IS HIGHER ARGUING TO LEARN THAN ARGUING TO WIN. >> IT DEPENDS ON WHO IS DOING THE REINFORCING. DISAPPOINTMENT STATISTICAL LEARNING, THERE IS LOTS OF STATISTICS OUT THERE WHICH YOU LATCH ON TO AND WHY. I THINK THERE IS LOTS OF CONFLICT -- THERE IS TOO MUCH STATISTICS TO TRACK IT ALL SO WE HAVE TO MAKE CHOICES AND WE CAN OFTEN GET MISLED. IT CAN GET REINFORCED FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS, AND LOTS OF PEOPLE DO. >> EN FORCED BY THE CAPACITY THAT YOU HAVE A NEW MECHANISM BY WHICH TO ARGUE THE NEXT TIME. >> YEAH, I WISH IT WORKED THAT WELL. I'M FRAID IT DOESN'T. >> BEFORE WE THANK DR. KYLE, LET ME JUST REMIND YOU. WE HAVE ONE MORE CONVERSATION THIS YEAR. MAY 123RD. >> THAT'S MY BIRTHDAY. >> HAPPY BIRTHDAY IN ADVANCE. MAY 23RD. >> TALK TO US ABOUT SCIENCE LEARNING THROUGH VIDEO GAMES AND ONLINE GAMING CAN. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> PLEASE TURN IN YOUR EVALUATIONS. I GET EVALUATED?{} >> PLEASE THANK DR.S KYLE.