Deduction o r Darwinian Algorithms?

An e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e " e l u s i v e " c o n t e n t e f f e c t on t h e Wason s e l e c t i o n t a s k

A t h e s i s presented

Leda Cosmides

The Department of Psychology and S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e d e g r e e of Doctor of Philosophy i n t h e s u b j e c t of Psychology Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Cambridge, Massachusetts J u l y , 1985

@ 1985 by Leda Cosmides

All r i g h t s reserved.

Abstract

T h i s t h e s i s d e v e l o p s t h e i d e a t h a t n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n h a s shaped how humans r e a s o n a b o u t e v o l u t i o n a r i l y i m p o r t a n t domains of human activity. The human mind can be e x p e c t e d t o i n c l u d e "Darwinian

a l g o r i thmsN t h a t a r e s p e c i a l i z e d f o r p r o c e s s i n g i n ormation a b o u t such domains. E v o l u t i o n a r y p r i n c i p l e s were h e u r i s t i c a l l y a p p l i e d

t o p i n p o i n t s o c i a l exchange a s an a d a p t i v e l y i m p o r t a n t domain of human a c t i v i t y ; t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s were a l s o a p p l i e d i n d e v e l o p i n g c o m p u t a t i o n a l t h e o r i e s of how humans p r o c e s s i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t s o c i a l exchange. Evidence i s p r e s e n t e d s u p p o r t i n g t h e h y p o t h e s i s

t h a t t h e human mind i n c l u d e s Darwinian a l g o r i t h m s s p e c i a l i z e d f o r r e a s o n i n g a b o u t s o c i a l exchange. T h i s h y p o t h e s i s both p r e d i c t s

and e x p l a i n s " c o n t e n t e f f e c t s n on t h e Wason s e l e c t i o n t a s k t e s t of l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g

--

-- b e t t e r

than a l t e r n a t i v e theories.

T a b l e of C o n t e n t s Deduction o r Darwinian Algorithms? An e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e " e l u s i v e " c o n t e n t e f f e c t on t h e Wason s e l e c t i o n t a s k

Chapter 1 Logic and t h e Study of Human Reasoning Why were p s y c h o l o g i s t s i n t e r e s t e d i n d e d u c t i v e l o g i c ? . What would a l o g i c module be lk?............... ie...............g Do humans h a v e a l o g i c mdl?................l oue.................3 Chapter 2
A review of t h e l i t e r a t u r e on t h e " e l u s i v e " c o n t e n t e f f e c t

..........6

on t h e Wason s e l e c t i o n t a s k Itouto..........................3 nrdcin.........................2 The T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P 0 l m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . 2 rbe...................4 The Food Polm.......................3 rbe........................3 The School Polm......................3 rbe.......................8 S o c i a l C o n t r a c t Polm....................4 rbes...................4 Chapter 3 "Differences i n Experience" : Proposed e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h e e l u s i v i t y of t h e c o n t e n t e f f e c t on t h e Wason s e l e c t i o n t a s k
~lnto......~.............7 F a m i l i e s of epaain....................2

E x p l a n a t i o n s proposed i n t h e l t r t r . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ieaue............4

....................................77 Memory-cueing/Reasoning by Analogy ...........................82 Mental Models ................................................89 Frames and Schemas ...........................................92 A u x i l i a r y Mechanisms .........................................95 Family 2 E x p l a n a t i o n s ....................................... 100 Summary of E x p l a n a t i o n s ....................................... 103
Differential Availability Chapter 4 Darwinian Algorithms Another view of human r a t i o n a l i t y
A b r i e f primer on n a t u r a l

.............................106 s e l e c t i o n ...........................109

Why should Darwinian a l g o r i t h m s be s p e c i a l i z e d and domain s p e c i f i c ?

............................................116
Chapter 5 Human S o c i a l Exchange

..................................................129 N a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n and s o c i a l exchange .........................130 S o c i a l exchange and t h e P l e i s t o c e n e environment ...............146 A c o m p u t a t i o n a l t h e o r y of s o c i a l exchange ..................... 149
Introduction Human s o c i a l exchange r e q u i r e s some fundamental cognitive capacities The grammar of s o c i a l

......................................152 1 c o n t r a c t s ............................. 7 2
Chapter 6

S o c i a l c o n t r a c t s and t h e Wason s e l e c t i o n t a s k : Experiments Introduction

.................................................

196

Experiment 1: U n f a m i l i a r S t a n d a r d S o c i a l C o n t r a c t s (Law) Experiment 2: U n f a m i l i a r Switched S o c i a l C o n t r a c t s

.....- 2 0 5 (Law) .....-211

Experiment 3: U n f a m i l i a r S t a n d a r d S o c i a l C o n t r a c t s (Exchange) 2 2 1 Experiment 4 : U n f a m i l i a r Switched S o c i a l C o n t r a c t s (Exchange) 226 Experiment 5: Experiment 6 :

. A b s t r a c t S t a n d a r d S o c i a l C o n t r a c t ...............237 F a m i l i a r S t a n d a r d S o c i a l C o n t r a c t s ..............244
Chapter 7 D i s c u s s i o n and C o n c l u s i o n s

The s o c i a l c o n t r a c t h y p o t h e s i s u n i q u e l y a c c o u n t s f o r e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s on t h e Wason s e l e c t i o n t a s k

.........................256

Are s o c i a l c o n t r a c t a l g o r i t h m s i n n a t e ? ........................259 The r o l e of e v o l u t i o n a r y t h e o r y i n psychology

.................266

....................................................2 6 9 Appendix B .................................................... 2 7 2 Appendix .................................................... 273 B i b l i o g r a p h y .................................................. 7 4 2

Appendix A
C

Introduction

The e q u i p o t e n t i a l i t y assumption h a s c r e p t , i n c o g n i t o , from t h e meta-theory of behaviorism* i n t o t h e meta-theory of c o g n i t i v e psychology. B e h a v i o r i s t s do n o t e x p e c t t h e l a w s of l e a r n i n g t o

d i f f e r from domain t o domain1 c o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g i s t s do n o t e x p e c t t h e p r o c e s s e s t h a t govern a t t e n t i o n , memory, o r r e a s o n i n g t o d i f f e r from domain t o domain. To t h e b e h a v i o r i s t , s t i m u l i a r e s t i m u l i and r e s p o n s e s , r e s p o n s e s : t h e i r c o n t e n t i s n o t supposed t o a f f e c t how t h e y a r e paired. When c o n t e n t e f f e c t s a r e d i s c o v e r e d , t h e b e h a v i o r i s t

s p e a k s of a d j u s t i n g "parameter v a l u e s n , o r of d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e o r g a n i s m ' s " e x p e r i e n c e " w i t h v a r i o u s c o n t e n t domains. To t h e

c o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g i s t , in ormation i s i n ormation: t h e c o n t e n t of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i s n o t supposed t o a f f e c t how it i s p r o c e s s e d . When c o n t e n t e f f e c t s a r e d i s c o v e r e d , t h e c o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g i s t a l s o s p e a k s of d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e o r g a n i s m ' s " e x p e r i e n c e n w i t h v a r i o u s c o n t e n t domains. Though unspoken, t h e message i s c l e a r : Content i s n o i s e . C o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s a r e c o n t e n t - i n d e p e n d e n t , domain g e n e r a l , equipotential. The human mind i s a g e n e r a l purpose i n f o r m a t i o n

p r o c e s s i n g system, d e s i g n e d t o p r o c e s s any kind of i n ormation with equal efficiency. The f o r m a t of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

--

for

example, whether it i s i m a g i s t i c o r p r o p o s i t i o n a l

--

might make a The

d i f f e r e n c e i n how i t i s p r o c e s s e d , b u t i t s c o n t e n t w i l l not. amount of e x p e r i e n c e t h e organism h a s had w i t h a domain may a f f e c t performance, b u t c o r r e c t f o r t h i s and t h e e f f e c t w i l l

f o r review, s e e H e r r n s t e i n , 1977.

disappear. assumed.

These c l a i m s a r e r a r e l y t e s t e d ; t h e y a r e merely

The a l t e r n a t i v e view

--

t h a t t h e human mind i n c l u d e s a

number of domain s p e c i f i c , content-dependent processing systems Marr

&

in ormat i o n

--

i s seldom e n t e r t a i n e d (Cf. Chomsky, 1975;

Although behaviorism came

N i s h i h a r a , 1978; Fodor, 1 9 8 3 ) .

under b r i s k a t t a c k from e v o l u t i o n a r y and e t h o l o g i c a l q u a r t e r s f o r assuming t h a t l e a r n i n g was e q u i p o t e n t i a l ( H e r r n s t e i n , 1 9 7 7 ) , c o g n i t i v e psychology seems untouched by t h i s f r a y and t h e s e r i o u s problems i t r a i sed.
Y e t t h e e v o l u t i o n a r y arguments a g a i n s t t h e

e q u i p o t e n t i a l i t y assumption i n behaviorism apply e q u a l l y t o c o g n i t i v e psychology. An unspoken assumption i s an unexamined assumption. C o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s may, i n f a c t , be c o n t e n t - i n d e p e n d e n t ; t h e n t h i s s h o u l d be proved, n o t presumed. i f so,

Indeed, when c o n t e n t

e f f e c t s a r e found, t h e content-independence of c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s s h o u l d be a h y p o t h e s i s of l a s t r e s o r t . Cognitive processes, l i k e electrons, a r e e n t i t i e s defined s o l e l y by i n p u t - o u t p u t r e l a t i o n s . An e l e c t r o n gun i s f i r e d a t a

d i f f r a c t i o n s l i t , and t h e n i n t o a cloud chamber: even though t h e d a t a from t h e f i r s t f i r i n g i n d i c a t e s a wave and t h e d a t a from t h e second i n d i c a t e s a p a r t i c l e , t h e r e a r e compelling r e a s o n s f o r b e l i e v i n g t h e s e d i v e r g e n t p a t t e r n s were c r e a t e d by one and t h e same e n t i t y .
I t would g r o s s l y v i o l a t e our most b a s i c n o t i o n s of

s i m i l a r i t y and c a u s a t i o n t o c a t e g o r i z e two f i r i n g s of an e l e c t r o n gun a s two d i f f e r e n t " s t i m u l i " , different targets. j u s t because t h e y were f i r e d a t

The same i n p u t

--

which was, i n t h i s c a s e ,

t h e v e r y e n t i t y p h y s i c i s t s were t r y i n g t o c h a r a c t e r i z e
2

--

yielded

d i f f e r e n t outputs.

The only r e a s o n a b l e t h e o r e t i c a l a 1t e r n a t i v e

was t o complexif y t h e e q u a t i o n s d e f i n i n g t h e e l e c t r o n , and assume t h a t i t d i d n o t c o r r e s p o n d t o any o r d i n a r y human c o n c e p t l i k e " p a r t i c l e " o r "wave" (Heisenberg, 1971)

.
-other than a

B u t t h e r e a r e no compelling r e a s o n s

misguided s e n s e of parsimony

--

f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e same

c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i s i n v o l v e d when m a n i f e s t l y d i f f e r e n t i n p u t s y i e l d unmistakably d i f f e r e n t o u t p u t s . I n f a c t , because c o g n i t i v e

p r o c e s s e s a r e e n t i t i e s d e f i n e d by t h e s e v e r y i n p u t - o u t p u t r e l a t i o n s , t h e d i s c o v e r y of c o n t e n t e f f e c t s should be t a k e n a s prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t s t i m u l i t e s t e d a r e accessing d i f f e r e n t cognitive processes. I f response p a t t e r n s

v a r y with s t i m u l u s c o n t e n t , b u t t h e i r v a r i a t i o n does n o t a p p e a r t o be s y s t e m a t i c , t h e n one should r e t h i n k o n e t s t h e o r y of how t o p a r s e t h e world i n t o c o n t e n t domains. "differences i n experience" falsify Hand-waving a p p e a l s t o

--

which a r e v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e t o

--

s h o u l d be e x p l a n a t i o n s of l a s t r e s o r t .

When c o n t e n t e f f e c t s a r e found, c o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g i s t s s h o u l d e n t e r t a i n t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t domain s p e c i f i c , c o n t e n t dependent, c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s a r e r e s p o n s i b l e . Content e f f e c t s

have been found on t h e Wason s e l e c t i o n t a s k , a famous e x p e r i m e n t a l paradigm t h a t t e s t s whether p e o p l e r e a s o n a c c o r d i n g t o t h e content-independent canons of f o r m a l l o g i c . Most a t t e m p t s

a t e x p l a i n i n g t h e s e c o n t e n t e f f e c t s have a p p e a l e d t o " d i f f e r e n c e s i n s u b j e c t s ' exper i e n c e " w i t h v a r i o u s c o n t e n t domains.

A

c o n t r o v e r s y h a s grown up around t h e s e c o n t e n t e f f e c t s , because, t o d a t e , t h e y have e l u d e d p r e d i c t i o n . T h i s t h e s i s u s e s c o n t e n t e f f e c t s on t h e Wason s e l e c t i o n t a s k

t o t e s t t h e hypothesis t h a t humans have domain s p e c i f i c , i n n a t e mental algorithms s p e c i a l i z e d f o r reasoning about s o c i a l exchange.

A computational theory of t h e f u n c t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s of

t h e s e algorithms was derived using n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n theory a s a h e u r i s t i c guide. C r i t i c a l t e s t s were conducted t o choose between

t h e s o c i a l exchange hypothesis and t h e hypotheses i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e t h a t appeal t o " d i f f e r e n c e s i n experience." The discovery of systematic v a r i a t i o n from domain t o domain

i s s t r o n g evidence t h a t domain s p e c i f i c algorithms a r e a t work;

so i s t h e discovery of systematic v a r i a t i o n within a domain t h a t cannot be e a s i l y explained by a content-independent process. Both kinds of evidence a r e presented i n support of t h e s o c i a l exchange hypothesis.
I argue t h a t no other hypothesis o f f e r e d so

f a r can p r e d i c t or explain t h e experimental r e s u l t s presented h e r e i n , and t h a t the s o c i a l exchange hypothesis best explains t h e content e f f e c t s on t h e Wason s e l e c t i o n t a s k t h a t have already been reported i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . The meta-theoretical view e n t a i l e d by t h i s hypothesis t h e human mind a s a c o l l e c t i o n of f u n c t i o n a l l y d i s t i n c t , Chomskian "mental organsn

--

of

-- a l s o

has parsimony on i t s s i d e .

The

human mind, l i k e t h e r e s t of t h e body and i t s f u n c t i o n s , was designed by n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n . The more important t h e adaptive

problem, t h e more i n t e n s e l y s e l e c t i o n w i l l have s p e c i a l i z e d and improved t h e performance of information processing mechanisms f o r s o l v i n g it. Domain general information processing mechanisms

simply cannot i n s u r e adaptive responses i n e v o l u t i o n a r i l y important domains of human a c t i v i t y exchange.

--

domains l i k e s o c i a l

Reasoning i n such domains should be governed by

4

"Darwinian a l g o r i t h m s n : m e n t a l a l g o r i t h m s s p e c i a l i z e d f o r s o l v i n g t h e a d a p t i v e problems t h a t d e f i n e t h e s e domains. With t h i s t h e s i s , I hope t o r e s u r r e c t t h e arguments a g a i n s t e q u i p o t e n t i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l mechanisms. From t h e s t a n d p o i n t of

e v o l u t i o n a r y t h e o r y , n o t h i n g c o u l d be more unparsimonious t h a n t h e view t h a t t h e human mind i s a g e n e r a l purpose i n f o r m a t i o n processor. Yet t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e Chomskian view h a s been

l i m i t e d because c o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g i s t s have l a c k e d a s y s t e m a t i c h e u r i s t i c f o r j u d g i n g which domains, o t h e r t h a n language, were l i k e l y t o command f u n c t i o n a l l y d i s t i n c t mental organs. Because

i t i s a t h e o r y of f u n c t i o n , n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n t h e o r y p r o v i d e s

j u s t such a h e u r i s t i c .

E v o l u t i o n a r y p r i n c i p l e s a l l o w one t o

p i n p o i n t domains f o r which n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n can be e x p e c t e d t o have shaped how humans reason. Moreover, t h e y s u g g e s t

c o m p u t a t i o n a l t h e o r i e s ( s e n s u Marr) of what t h e i r d e s i g n f e a t u r e s a r e l i k e l y t o be. The t h e o r y of s o c i a l exchange developed i n t h i s t h e s i s was informed, a t e v e r y s t a g e , by e v o l u t i o n a r y p r i n c i p l e s . In the

s t u d y of human r e a s o n i n g , t h e s e a r c h f o r content-independent i n f e r e n c e p r o c e d u r e s had g e n e r a t e d a con u s i o n of a p p a r e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e s u l t s ; t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t humans have domain s p e c i f i c Darwinian a l g o r i t h m s f o r r e a s o n i n g a b o u t s o c i a l exchange r e s o l v e s much of t h i s c o n f u s i o n . The h e u r i s t i c a p p l i c a t i o n of

e v o l u t i o n a r y t h e o r y can r e v o l u t i o n i z e c o g n i t i v e psychology, a l l o w i n g i t t o a d d r e s s i s s u e s c l o s e r t o t h e h e a r t of what we t h i n k of a s human n a t u r e . This t h e s i s i s offered a s a small

i l l u s t r a t i o n of its p o t e n t i a l .