The Reasoning Test Psychologists Still Can't Explain

Scientific Concepts, Discoveries, and Nature Phenomena in the Subtitles

Reasoning / Psychology: The Wason Selection Task

• The Wason selection task (devised in 1966 by Peter Cathcart Wason) is presented as a flagship experimental problem for studying human reasoning.
• Key empirical claim:
  • In the original wording, about 10% of participants get it right.
  • In later replications, performance is often closer to 4%.

How the task works

• It is a conditional reasoning problem using four cards:
  • each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other (e.g., A, G, 7, 8).
• The rule is given as:
  • “If there is an A on one side, there is a seven on the other.”

Typical “correct” actions (as explained in the subtitles)

• To test the rule properly, participants must:
  • Check A to see whether a 7 appears on the other side.
  • Check 8 to look for a counterexample: if A appears opposite 8, the rule is violated.

Performance comparison with social rules

• The subtitles describe a contrast in performance:
  • When the abstract letter/number version is replaced with a social rule (e.g., a bar/pub drinking example), performance improves dramatically—subtitles claim everyone gets it right in that version.

---

Conditional Logic: Modus Ponens / Modus Tollens (and Invalid Inferences)

• The subtitles formalize the task using conditional logic:
  • A conditional statement: “If P, then Q.”
  • P = antecedent (“if” part)
  • Q = consequent (“then” part)

Valid inference forms

• Modus ponens (valid): affirm P → conclude Q
  • Example: “If someone is drinking alcohol, they must be over 21; they are drinking alcohol → therefore they are over 21.”
• Modus tollens (valid): deny Q → conclude not P
  • Example: “If someone is drinking alcohol, they must be over 21; they are not over 21 → therefore they are not drinking alcohol.”

Invalid inference forms

• Affirming the consequent is emphasized as invalid:
  • Confirming Q → you cannot conclude P.

---

Why Abstraction Makes People Fail: Descriptive vs. Deontic Rules

• Researchers Leda Cosmides and John Tooby argue (as summarized in the subtitles) that:
  • people reason more easily with social contract / obligation contexts than with abstract truth-conditions.

Two categories of Wason variants described

• Descriptive rule versions:
  • rules about what is the case (truth-finding).
• Deontic rule versions:
  • rules about what one must/should do (duties/obligations/social norms).

Subtitle claim

• This distinction helps explain:
  • why abstract letter/number conditionals are difficult
  • why social “rule compliance” versions (bar/pub) are easier.

---

Confirmation Bias and Counterexample-Hunting

• The subtitles argue humans are poor at seeking counterexamples (falsification) and instead prefer evidence that supports their expectations.

Study summarized (attributed to Johnson-Laird and Wason, 1970)

• Participants are shown two boxes (black vs. white shapes) under a hypothesis-testing instruction (example described: “All triangles are white.”).
• Participants tend to:
  • sample confirming evidence (e.g., white triangles),
  • rather than test for the falsifying case (e.g., a black triangle).
• Only after repeated confirmations do many start searching for counterexamples.

Popper and falsification

• Karl Popper is referenced for the idea that science advances by attempting to find what breaks a theory, not only gathering supporting evidence.

Einstein as an example of bold falsifiability

• Einstein is cited for proposing an eclipse test for general relativity—an observation that could refute the theory.

---

Earlier Wason-Related Task: Rule Discovery via “Triples” and Counterexamples

• Another Wason game is described (“dad trickiest trick trick for science” segment):
  • a hidden numerical rule generates triples that either fit or don’t fit.
• Success depends on proposing counterexamples to infer the rule.
• The explanation emphasizes that people often generate possible fits more readily than non-fits when trying to learn the rule.

---

Social Psychology of Reasoning: Social “Trust” Function

• The subtitles propose reasoning evolved mainly to support social communication and cooperation, not just to solve abstract puzzles.
• Mercier and Sperber (The Enigma of Reason) are referenced with a key claim:
  • people often generate conclusions first, then produce reasons afterward to justify them (described as confabulation/justification).
• A later idea references “wisdom of crowds” style thinking:
  • aggregating many perspectives can outperform individuals.

---

Communication and Norms: Phatic Communion

• Bronisław Malinowski (1930s) is cited for phatic communion:
  • language used to signal social connection/acknowledgment rather than to convey literal information.
• Examples mentioned:
  • “You too” after “Enjoy your meal”
  • “Have a nice flight”
  • greetings like “How’s it going?”
• The subtitles also suggest phatic meanings can shift over generations.

---

Moral Reasoning and Taboos: Haidt’s “Harmless Taboo Violations”

• Jonathan Haidt and The Righteous Mind are referenced.
• Example moral judgment prompt:
  • A family eats their accidentally dead dog after hearing dog meat is “delicious,” with conditions engineered to remove normal justifications:
    • nobody saw it,
    • no one got sick,
    • the dog was already dead,
    • they felt it was respectful and brought them closer.
• The subtitle frames this as a test of whether people label it morally wrong based on instinctive taboo reactions rather than explicit reasons.

---

Health / Biology Mention (Non-Core to Reasoning Task)

• A brief sponsor segment (Cancer Research UK) includes:
  • claim: DNA contains ancient viral fragments (“dark genome”)
  • the “dark genome” influences biology and diseases like cancer
• No specific researcher names are given in this segment.

---

Researchers / Sources Featured (As Named in the Subtitles)

• Peter Cathcart Wason
• Leda Cosmides
• John Tooby
• Hannah (not a researcher; appears as a participant/host)
• Mercier and Sperber (reason researchers; full names not provided in subtitles)
• Johnson-Laird (cited with Wason; study dated 1970) and Wason
• Karl Popper
• Albert Einstein
• Bronisław Malinowski
• Jonathan Haidt
• Cancer Research UK (organization; sponsor/source for the DNA “dark genome” segment)
• Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber (explicitly named near the end; “The Enigma of Reason”)

---

Methodology / Test Logic (Bullet Outline)

• Wason selection task procedure (described):
  • Present four cards; each has a hidden opposite side (letter/number or age/drink).
  • Show one side of each card to participants.
  • Provide a conditional rule (If P then Q).
  • Ask which cards must be turned to check whether the rule is true (to find violations/counterexamples).
• Logic inference mapping (described):
  • Identify P = antecedent, Q = consequent.
  • Use valid forms:
    • Modus ponens: P → Q; P true ⇒ Q true
    • Modus tollens: P → Q; Q false ⇒ P false
  • Avoid invalid forms like affirming the consequent (Q true ⇒ P true is not licensed).