The role of motivational factors in insightful problem-solving.

Over the last decade, there have been many suggestions to improve how scientists answer their questions, but far fewer attempt to improve the questions scientists are asking in the first place. The goal of the paper is then to examine and summarize synthesize the evidence on how to ask the best questions possible. First is a brief review of the philosophical and empirical literature on how the best science is done, which implicitly but not explicitly mentions the role of psychology and especially cognitive conflict. Then we more closely focus on the psychology of the scientist, finding that they are humans, engaged in a meaning making process, and that cognitive conflict is a necessary input for any learning or change in the system. The scientific method is, of course, a specialized meaning making process. We present evidence for this central role of cognitive conflict in science by examining the most discussed scientific papers between 2013 and 2017, which are, in general, controversial and about big problems (e.g., whether vaccines cause autism, how often doctors kill us with their mistakes). Toward the end we discuss the role of science in society, suggesting science itself is an uncertainty reducing and problem solving enterprise. From this basis we encourage scientists to take riskier stances on bigger topics, for the good of themselves and society generally.

Download Full-text

The Science of Wisdom in a Polarized World: Knowns and Unknowns

10.31234/osf.io/w9ygc ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Igor Grossmann ◽

Nic M. Weststrate ◽

Monika Ardelt ◽

Justin Peter Brienza ◽

Mengxi Dong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Individual Differences ◽

Problem Solving ◽

Best Practices ◽

Cognitive Sciences ◽

Methodological Challenges ◽

The Common ◽

Empirical Approaches ◽

And Training ◽

Contextual Differences

Interest in wisdom in the cognitive sciences, psychology, and education has been paralleled by conceptual confusions about its nature and assessment. To clarify these issues and promote consensus in the field, wisdom researchers met in Toronto in July of 2019, resolving disputes through discussion. Guided by a survey of scientists who study wisdom-related constructs, we established a common wisdom model, observing that empirical approaches to wisdom converge on the morally-grounded application of metacognition to reasoning and problem-solving. After outlining the function of relevant metacognitive and moral processes, we critically evaluate existing empirical approaches to measurement and offer recommendations for best practices. In the subsequent sections, we use the common wisdom model to selectively review evidence about the role of individual differences for development and manifestation of wisdom, approaches to wisdom development and training, as well as cultural, subcultural, and social-contextual differences. We conclude by discussing wisdom’s conceptual overlap with a host of other constructs and outline unresolved conceptual and methodological challenges.

Download Full-text