Why some surprises are more surprising than others: Surprise as a metacognitive sense of explanatory difficulty

Early theories of surprise, including Darwin’s, argued that it was predominantly a basic emotion. Recently, theories have taken a more cognitive view of surprise, casting it as a process of “making sense of surprising events”. The current paper advances the view that the essence of this sense-making process is explanation; specifically, that people’s perception of surprise is a metacognitive estimate of the cognitive work involved in explaining an abnormal event. So, some surprises are more surprising because they are harder to explain. This proposal is tested in eight experiments that explore how (i) the contents of memory can influence surprise, (ii) different classes of scenarios can retrieve more/less relevant knowledge from memory to explain surprising outcomes, (iii) how partial explanations constrain the explanation process, reducing surprise, and (iv) how, overall, any factor that acts to increase the cognitive work in explaining a surprising event, results in higher levels of surprise (e.g., task demands to find three rather than one explanations). Across the present studies, using different materials, paradigms and measures, it is consistently and repeatedly found that the difficulty of explaining a surprising outcome is the best predictor for people’s perceptions of the surprisingness of events. Alternative accounts of these results are considered, as are future directions for this research.     

Why we walk the way we do

By using inverse dynamics and forceplate recordings, this study established the principle of oscillating systems and the influence of gravity and body parameters on the programming of the gait parameters, step frequency and length. Calculation of the ratio of the amplitude of the center of mass (CM) and the center of foot pressure (CP) oscillations yielded an equation and established a biomechanical constant, the natural body frequency (NBF). NBF appears to be an absolute invariant parameter, specific to human standing posture and gait in terrestrial gravity, which influences the relative positions of CM and CP and whose value separates the frequency bands of standing posture from those for gait. This equation was tested by using the experimental paradigm of stepping in place and then used in calculating the magnitude of CM oscillations during gait. The biomechanical analysis of the experimental observations allows one to establish the relationships between body parameters and gravity and the central programming of locomotor parameters.     

Why we Believe

The radical probabilist counsels the prudent never to put away uncertainty, and hence always to balance judgment with probabilities of various sizes. Against this counsel I shall advise in favor of the practice of full belief — at least for some occasions. This advice rests on the fact that it is sometimes in a person's interests to accept certain propositions as a means of bringing it about that others recognize oneself as having accepted those propositions. With the pragmatists, therefore, I shall reject the view that belief formation must in every instance be a truth-directed affair. Unlike the pragmatists, however, I shall conclude that the enterprise of belief formation is not directed exclusively, or even primarily, at attaining knowledge. In other words, pursuit of that which it profits to believe, on the one hand, and pursuit of knowledge on the other, are distinct enterprises, which overlap (when they do) only accidentally. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Why we still need a mark of the cognitive

What makes a process a cognitive process? I’m not just asking for a list of cognitive processes, but for what makes an item on that list a cognitive process. Why should it be on the list? This is a question that has been ignored far too long in the domain of research calling itself cognitive science. It is time to give an answer and that is what I propose in this paper. I contrast my answer with others that have been given and defend the need against some claims in the literature that a mark of the cognitive is not needed.     

Awe as a Scientific Emotion

Awe has traditionally been considered a religious or spiritual emotion, yet scientists often report that awe motivates them to answer questions about the natural world, and to do so in naturalistic terms. Indeed, awe may be closely related to scientific discovery and theoretical advance. Awe is typically triggered by something vast (either literally or metaphorically) and initiates processes of accommodation, in which existing mental schemas are revised to make sense of the awe‐inspiring stimuli. This process of accommodation is essential for the kind of belief revision that characterizes scientific reasoning and theory change. Across six studies, we find that the tendency to experience awe is positively associated with scientific thinking, and that this association is not shared by other positive emotions. Specifically, we show that the disposition to experience awe predicts a more accurate understanding of how science works, rejection of creationism, and rejection of unwarranted teleological explanations more broadly.     

Why there might be a moral faculty: A reply to Johnson

Is there a cognitive faculty dedicated to the moral domain? Mark Johnson has developed a number of arguments against the existence of such a faculty. I claim that these arguments are not persuasive and that there may be a moral faculty.     

Why we need a relevant theory of conditionals

This paper presents ConR (Conditional R), a logic of conditionals based on Anderson and Belnap's system R. A Routley-Meyer-style semantics for ConR is given for the system (the completeness of ConR over this semantics is proved in E. Mares and A. Fuhrmann, A Relevant Theory of Conditionals (unpublished MS)). Moreover, it is argued that adopting a relevant theory of conditionals will improve certain theories that utilize conditionals, i.e. Lewis' theory of causation, Lewis' dyadic deontic logic, and Chellas' dyadic deontic logic.I am of course deeply indebted to André Fuhrmann, who co-wrote the paper on which the present effort is based. Perhaps I should also thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada because the original research for this project was funded by them in the form of a post-doctoral fellowship.     

Why we can't get along

The author examines various arguments to explain the internal conflicts and schisms that have afflicted depth psychology since its beginnings. These arguments include the inevitable splits that occur in the course of institutional development, the inheritance of family schisms within the profession, historical, geographical and political influences, Freud's notion of the 'narcissism of minor differences' along with Gordon's idea of the need for enemies in establishing identity, and the impact of market forces. The author refutes these arguments and postulates instead that the profession attracts narcissistically disturbed members who have not been or cannot be sufficiently analysed. The profession needs to address this endemic narcissism in order to prevent further splitting and to establish a more ecumenical framework.     

Why we can still believe the error theory

The error theory is a metaethical theory that maintains that normative judgments are beliefs that ascribe normative properties, and that these properties do not exist. In a recent paper, Bart Streumer argues that it is impossible to fully believe the error theory. Surprisingly, he claims that this is not a problem for the error theorist: even if we can’t fully believe the error theory, the good news is that we can still come close to believing the error theory. In this paper I show that Streumer’s arguments fail. First, I lay out Streumer’s argument for why we can’t believe the error theory. Then, I argue against the unbelievability of the error theory. Finally, I show that Streumer’s positive proposal that we can come close to believing the error theory is actually undermined by his own argument for why we can’t believe the error theory.     

Why we are fairer than others

Subjects wrote lists of either fair or unfair things that they or others did. A pervasive tendency was found for subjects to associate themselves with fair behaviors and others with unfair behaviors. When different subjects rated samples of the written behaviors for fairness and frequency we found that fair behaviors were rated as more frequent than unfair behaviors and self-ascribed behaviors were rated as fairer than behaviors ascribed to others. These findings and others are shown to result from a tendency for subjects to perceive a stronger link between the fairness and frequency of their own behavior than between the fairness and frequency of the behavior of other people. A final analysis showed that the subcategories of unfair behavior that subjects associated with others were different from those associated with themselves.     

Why we simulate negated information: a dynamic pragmatic account

A well-established finding in the simulation literature is that participants simulate the positive argument of negation soon after reading a negative sentence, prior to simulating a scene consistent with the negated sentence (Kaup, Ludtke, & Zwaan, 2006; Kaup, Yaxley, Madden, Zwaan, & Ludtke, 2007). One interpretation of this finding is that negation requires two steps to process: first represent what is being negated then "reject" that in favour of a representation of a negation-consistent state of affairs (Kaup et al., 2007). In this paper we argue that this finding with negative sentences could be a by-product of the dynamic way that language is interpreted relative to a common ground and not the way that negation is represented. We present a study based on Kaup et al. (2007) that tests the competing accounts. Our results suggest that some negative sentences are not processed in two steps, but provide support for the alternative, dynamic account.     

Why we need a theory of suffering, and lots of other theories as well: commentary

In the first section of his article, "The Role of Suffering and Community in Clinical Ethics," Erich Loewy sketches a theory of suffering. His conviction is that clinical medical ethics is not clearly rooted in theory and is inadequately grounded because of this. While acknowledging the merits of virtue ethics and casuistry, Loewy quickly dispenses with them, as contenders for this theoretical basis. Kantianism and utilitarianism are likewise rejected as "a universally acceptable grounding for ethics." In their place, Loewy proposes that "a deeper and more universal grounding can be found in the capacity of sentient beings to suffer." It is on this capacity to suffer that he builds his hierarchies of moral value, including primary, secondary, and symbolic worth. This theory of suffering should be welcomed. It promises to expand our awareness of clinical experience, and moral life generally, away from autonomy, utility, or virtue orientations toward attention to suffering and our response to it. Such a theory can give us a revitalized language to probe the issues of medical ethics. This should lead us to a careful reading of Loewy's larger work on which this article is based. Yet my enthusiasm is tempered by Loewy's noncritical acceptance of a peculiar, yet pervasive, understanding of the role and use of theory in ethics....     

Why we need cognitive explanations of autism

In the 70 years since autism was described and named there have been huge changes in the conceptualization of this enigmatic condition. This review takes a personal perspective on the history of autism research. The origins of the first cognitive theories of autism, theory of mind and weak central coherence, are discussed and updated to inform future developments. Selected experimental findings are interpreted in the historical context of changes that have been brought about by advances in methodology. A three-level framework graphically illustrates a causal chain between brain, mind, and behaviour to facilitate the identification of phenotypes in neurodevelopmental disorders. Cognition is placed at the centre of the diagram to reveal that it can link together brain and behaviour, when there are complex multiple mappings between the different levels.     

Why should we abandon the mental logic hypothesis?

Two hypotheses on deductive reasoning are under development: mental logic and mental models. It is often accepted that there are overwhelming arguments to reject the mental logic hypothesis. I revise these arguments and claim that they are either not conclusive, or point at problems which are troublesome for the mental model hypothesis as well.     

Children's Explanations as a Window Into Their Intuitive Theories of the Social World

Social categorization is an early emerging and robust component of social cognition, yet the role that social categories play in children's understanding of the social world has remained unclear. The present studies examined children's (N = 52 four‐ and five‐year olds) explanations of social behavior to provide a window into their intuitive theories of how social categories constrain human action. Children systematically referenced category memberships and social relationships as causal‐explanatory factors for specific types of social interactions: harm among members of different categories more than harm among members of the same category. In contrast, they systematically referred to agents' mental states to explain the reverse patterns of behaviors: harm among members of the same category more than harm among members of different categories. These data suggest that children view social category memberships as playing a causal‐explanatory role in constraining social interactions.     

Expected performance at the human/computer interface as a function of user proficiency and system power

How do managers expect the proficiency of users and the power of the computers to determine overall performance? Five different models are proposed: (a) a matching model in which optimal performance is achieved when the power of the system is judged to be compatible with the proficiency of the user, (b) an averaging model in which expected performance is the average of the values of user proficiency and system power, (c) a multiplying model in which performance is the product of the values of user proficiency and system power, (d) a human/computer ratio model in which performance is determined by the ratio of system power over total effort, and (e) a computer/human ratio model in which performance is determined by the ratio of user proficiency over total effort. The applicability of these models was assessed by having managers and students of management predict performance in human/computer systems from information about the user's proficiency with computers and the power of the system. Participants rated 16 combinations of user proficiency and system power from a 4 × 4 factorial design. The pattern of ratings indicated that 51 per cent used a multiplying model and 25 percent used an averaging model; whereas, only 6 percent used the matching model and 4 percent used a ratio model. The remaining 14 percent did not follow any model clearly. Implications of these results were discussed for the design of the human/ computer interface, training and selection of users, and the cost-benefit tradeoffs for investment in user training versus equipment acquisition.     

Why wouldn't we cry? Love and loss along a river in decline

Along the upper reaches of the Ganga in the Indian Himalayas, devotees of the river and its Hindu Goddess decry the changes that are effecting the sanctity and continuity of its flow. Concerns include the impacts of development projects such as hydroelectric dams and the implications of climate shifts such as altered precipitation, warming temperatures, and melting glaciers. These forces of change are frequent subjects of commentary for those that fear the river's potential demise. This article draws from ethnographic research from 2008 to 2009 to highlight two of the main emotions cited by river devotees when they speak of its condition: love and loss. The feelings of intimacy are sometimes expressed through talk of identity (pehchaan) and in demands to ensure the river's uninterrupted flow. Expressions of loss are also shared verbally, through discourse, and they are evident in moments when people respond to significant changes in the river's appearance. After addressing discourses of concern for the Ganga, the article closes with the Government of India's decision to cancel the contested dams on the river's upper regions and to declare it an “eco-sensitive zone”. Such measures are important recognitions of emotive linkages with and dependencies on nature.