On novel, hard tasks, superior trained adults tend to jump at conclusions, accept results without surety, and become confused, more than orthodox psychology supposes¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr1·q1
Currency · newest study 1922 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q1 i? Inspection of the adults' answers to why magnets are bent into U form showed impulsive, uncritical, and confused thinking to a notable degree. → Thorndike 1922
q1 i? The authors claim the difference between adult and child thinking is in part a consequence of specialized habits rather than all-pervasive and constitutional. → Thorndike 1922 (2)
Evidence¶
Thorndike 1922¶
Thorndike, E. L., & Upton, C. B. (1922). An Experiment in Learning an Abstract Subject. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 13(6). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0065229
q1 · i? · qualitative · r2
The authors' qualitative inspection of twenty answers to the U-magnet question, given after ten hours of study, found "impulsive, uncritical, and confused thinking to a notable degree." This is the writers' interpretation of the written work, not a tested comparison.
"Many of them show an impulsive, uncritical, and confused thinking to a notable degree—to the person who is really master of the topic."
Thorndike 1922 (2)¶
Thorndike, E. L., & Upton, C. B. (1922). An Experiment in Learning an Abstract Subject. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 13(6). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0065229
q1 · i? · causal · r1
The authors' interpretive conclusion from inspecting the adults' work: the adult-child contrast in rationality is "in part, a consequence of specialized habits." No effect size or test is reported; this is the writers' opinion based on the collected work.
"our inspection of the work of this score of superior trained adult thinkers strongly suggests that the paradox has a large element of truth, that the difference in thinking is not all-pervasive and constitutional, but is, in part, a consequence of specialized habits."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Uncriticalness on hard novel tasks appears as many wrong answers relative to omissions and as eagerness to learn answers from authority rather than one's own checks — related
- Gifted, highly trained adults working a novel abstract task produce error-ridden problem work comparable in character to that of school pupils — related
- Emote-aloud protocols show learner emotions correlate systematically with AutoTutor dialogue features — related
- Reviewed literature reports risks of overreliance, AI errors in complex tasks, and students' uncritical acceptance of AI-generated outputs — a broader claim this one bears on
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
adult-thinking-task-novelty-not-constitutional |
title |
On novel, hard tasks, superior trained adults tend to jump at conclusions, accept results without surety, and become confused, more than orthodox psychology supposes |
description |
On novel, hard tasks, superior trained adults tend to jump at conclusions, accept results without surety, and become confused, more than orthodox psychology supposes |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
1922 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-24 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — thorndike-1922, thorndike-1922-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.