Posts Tagged ‘Watson’

Thinking 2.0

March 9, 2016

This  post was inspired by an article in the February 26, 2016 edition of the “New Scientist” written by Michael Brooks.  The title of the article is “A new kind of logic:  How to upgrade the way we think.”    There are many healthymemoy blog posts about the limitations of our cognitive processes.  First of all, are attentional capacity is quite limited and requires selection.  Our working memory capacity is around 5 or fewer items.  There are healthy memory blog posts on cognitive misers and cognitive spendthrifts.  Thought requires cognitive effort that we are often reluctant to spend making us cognitive misers.  And there are limits to the amount of cognitive effort we can expend.  Cognitive effort spent unwisely can be costly.

Let me elaborate on the last statement with some personal anecdotes.  Ohio State was on the quarter system when I attended and my initial goal was to begin college right after graduation in the summer quarter and to attend quarter consecutively so that I would graduate within three years.  Matters when fairly well until my second quarter when I earned the only “D” in my life.  Although I did get one “A” it was in a course for which I had already read the textbook in high school.  I replaced and continued to attend consecutive quarters, but only part time during he summer.  I was in the honors program and managed to graduate in 3.5 years with a Bachelor’s of Arts with Distinction in Psychology.  I tried going directly into graduate studies, but found that I had already expended my remaining cognitive capital.  So I entered the Army to give my mind a rest.

When I returned and began graduate school I was a cognitive spendthrift who wanted to learn as much as I could in my field.  However, I found that I could not work long hours.  If I did my brain turned to mush and I was on the verge of drooling.  So I found it profitable to stop my cognitive spendthrift days and marshal my cognitive resources. It worked and I earned my doctorate psychology from the University of Utah.

Michael Brooks argues that we are stuck in Thinking 1.0.   He mentions that our conventional economic models bear no resemblance to the real world.  We’ve had unpredicted financial crises because of incorrect rational economic models.  This point has been  made many times in the healthy memory blog.  Behavioral economics should address these shortcomings, but it is still in an early stage of development.

Ioannidis’s article has convinced  statisticians and epidemiologists that more than half of scientific papers reach flawed conclusions especially in medical science, neuroscience and psychology.

Currently we do have big data, machine learning, neural nets, and, of course, the Jeopardy champion Watson.  Although these systems provide answers, they do not provide explanations as to how they arrived at the answers.  And there are statistical relations in which it is difficult to determine causality, that is, what causes what.

Michael Brooks argues that Thinking 2.0 is needed.  Quantum logic makes the distinction between cause and effect (one thing influencing another) and common cause (two things responding to the same effect).  The University of Pittsburgh opened the Center for Causal Discovery ( in 2014.

Judea Pearl, a computer scientist and philosopher at UCLA (and the father of the tragically slain journalist Daniel Pearl) says “You simply cannot grasp causal relationships with statistical language.”  Judea Perl has done some outstanding mathematics and has developed software that has made intractable AI programs tractable and has provided for distinguishing  cause and effect.  Unlike neural nets, machine learning, and Watson, it provides the logic, 2.0 logic I believe, as to reasoning behind the conclusions or actions.

It is clear that Thinking 2.0 will require computers.  But let us hope that humans will understand and be able to develop narratives from their output.  If we just get answers from machine oracles will we still be thinking in 2.0

© Douglas Griffith and, 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Jeopardy, Watson, and Transactive Memory

February 17, 2011

The recent competition between expert human contestants and the IBM computer, Watson, raises some interesting questions. These questions relate to transactive memory. Transactive memory refers to information that is not stored in one’s personal memory, but resides in another human’s memory or in some technological artifact, such as the internet or a library. So consider the answers presented on Jeopardy to which the contestant, human or Watson, needs to find the appropriate question to ask. In the case of the Jeopardy competition, either the individual memories of the participating humans had to find the correct question, or a technological artifact, Watson, had to find the correct question.

Normally, when someone needs to find a piece of information, they can either ask someone, or look it up in a reference, or search for it with a computer. In either case they are relying on transactive memory. If they know that the information exists someplace, that is termed available transactive memory. If they know where to find or whom to ask, then that is termed accessible transactive memory.

Given the ready availability of technology, one question is whether humans need to commit any information to personal biological memory if they can simply look it up or search for it. Of course, if no human commits any information to personal biological memory, asking other humans will not be an option. I would argue that the answer to this question is “no” for a couple of reasons.

Given the philosophy of the Healthymemory Blog, a healthy memory requires mental exercise, and committing information to memory is a good means of providing this exercise. This is true if mnemonic techniques are employed. Mnemonic techniques employ both hemispheres of the brain, and require imagination, creativity, and recoding. Now some Jeopardy contestants might employ mnemonic techniques some of the time, but I doubt that they are a major activity. Jeopardy contestants read widely. For material to be remembered, it needs to be meaningful. So much knowledge on a wide variety of topics has been linked together in their brains’ memory circuits. This activity also makes for a healthy memory. Moreover, most of the topics employed on Jeopardy are not trivia. Most represent substantive learning. However, even the learning of trivia can be healthy to the brain, as it does exercise the brain and build memory circuits. Although one might argue that the time could be better spent, if the activity is enjoyable that should be justification enough.

Nevertheless, given the wide availability of technology, there is a serious educational question here. Historically, most learning has been assessed by determining how much material has been memorized via true false, multiple choice, fill in the blank, or essay questions. Is this still the best way to assess learning? Rather than assessing what knowledge has been memorized, might it be better to assess how well a student can use this knowledge. In this case, there might be no need for closed book tests, and students might be given access not only to their own notes, but also to the internet. Exam questions would require them to solve problems given access to all these resources. Of course, giving citations for the sources of material should be a requirement.

I don’t know the answer to this question. The stage of education and the type of material are relevant considerations. But testing does need to be reconsidered given the new technology.

When we encounter new information we are confronted with several questions. One is whether the information has any interest or relevance. If the answer is yes, then the question is how much attention needs to be paid to it. Does it need to be committed to personal biological memory? Or do I simply need to know how to access or whom to ask, when this information is needed? 

© Douglas Griffith and, 2011. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.