The science of cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work

When their understanding of the basics of bicycle design was assessed objectively, people were found to make frequent and serious mistakes, such as believing that the chain went around the front wheel as well as the back wheel. Errors were reduced but not eliminated for bicycle experts, for men more than women, and for people who were shown a real bicycle as they were tested. The results demonstrate that most people’s conceptual understanding of this familiar, everyday object is sketchy and shallow, even for information that is frequently encountered and easily perceived. This evidence of a minimal and even inaccurate causal understanding is inconsistent with that of strong versions of explanation-based (or theory-based) theories of categorization.

[1]  J. O'Regan,et al.  Solving the "real" mysteries of visual perception: the world as an outside memory. , 1992, Canadian journal of psychology.

[2]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Similarity- versus rule-based categorization , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[3]  R. Nickerson,et al.  Long-term memory for a common object , 1979, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Big Book of Concepts , 2002 .

[5]  G. Murphy,et al.  Category learning with minimal prior knowledge. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  Emilie L. Lin,et al.  Effects of Background Knowledge on Object Categorization and Part Detection , 1997 .

[7]  G. V. Jones,et al.  Generalizing everyday memory: Signs and handedness , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[8]  Frank C. Keil,et al.  The Shadows and Shallows of Explanation , 1998, Minds and Machines.

[9]  E. Wisniewski,et al.  Prior knowledge and functionally relevant features in concept learning. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  William F. Brewer,et al.  Explanation in Scientists and Children , 1998, Minds and Machines.

[11]  Frank C. Keil,et al.  Categorisation, causation, and the limits of understanding , 2003 .

[12]  Stephen G. West,et al.  Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis , 1982 .

[13]  M. Pazzani.  Influence of prior knowledge on concept acquisition: Experimental and computational results. , 1991 .

[14]  W. Ahn,et al.  Demystifying Theory-based Categorization , 2002 .

[15]  M. Robert.  The gender difference in orienting liquid surfaces and plumb-lines: its robustness, its correlates, and the associated knowledge of simple physics. , 1996, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[16]  Thomas J Palmeri,et al.  The role of background knowledge in speeded perceptual categorization , 2000, Cognition.

[17]  D. Leiser.  Scattered naive theories:: why the human mind is isomorphic to the internet web , 2001 .

[18]  D. Kirshner.  Some nonexplanations of bicycle stability , 1980 .

[19]  H. Hecht,et al.  Influence of animation on dynamical judgments. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  J. Fajansa.  Steering in bicycles and motorcycles , 2000 .

[21]  Frank C Keil,et al.  Journal of Experimental , 2003 .

[22]  Maureen A. Callanan,et al.  Parents Explain More Often to Boys Than to Girls During Shared Scientific Thinking , 2001, Psychological science.

[23]  F. Keil.  Folkscience: coarse interpretations of a complex reality , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[24]  D. E. Jones.  The stability of the bicycle , 1970 .

[25]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[26]  Leonid Rozenblit,et al.  The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[27]  Sergio E Chaigneau,et al.  Assessing the causal structure of function. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[28]  Kerri L. Johnson,et al.  Why People Fail to Recognize Their Own Incompetence , 2003 .

[29]  Heiko Hecht,et al.  Naive optics: Predicting and perceiving reflections in mirrors. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  Kathy E. Johnson,et al.  Factors associated with the early emergence of intense interests within conceptual domains , 2004 .

[31]  D. Rohrer.  The natural appearance of unnatural incline speed , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[32]  Mike Rinck,et al.  Memory for everyday objects : Where are the digits on numerical keypads ? , 1999 .

[33]  William R. Marmie,et al.  Memory for common objects: brief intentional study is sufficient to overcome poor recall of US coin features , 2004 .

[34]  S. Carey.  Conceptual Change in Childhood , 1985 .

[35]  Georgia Panagiotaki,et al.  The development of scientific knowledge of the Earth , 2005 .

[36]  F. Keil.  Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development , 1989 .

[37]  D. Medin,et al.  The role of theories in conceptual coherence. , 1985, Psychological review.

[38]  D. Proffitt,et al.  Understanding wheel dynamics , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.