Introduction
Intelligence is a multifaceted concept, often associated with the ability to think, reason, and solve problems. However, emerging research suggests that the process of thinking can be both mentally taxing and unpleasant for many individuals. The phrase "thinking hurts" encapsulates the discomfort that can arise from engaging in deep cognitive activities. This discomfort raises critical questions about the nature of intelligence and the diverse ways in which different cognitive systems operate. In this article, we explore the challenges associated with thinking, the differences in cognitive processes, and the implications for how we understand intelligence.
Thinking Hurts: The Challenge of Cognitive Engagement
Thinking Hurts More Than We Might Expect
A study by Wilson et al. (2014) found that many people prefer to engage in mundane activities or even subject themselves to electric shocks rather than spend time alone with their thoughts. The experiment involved participants sitting in a room with nothing to do but think for 6 to 15 minutes. The results were striking: most participants did not enjoy the experience, and many preferred the discomfort of a mild electric shock to the discomfort of solitary thinking. This suggests that for many, mental effort is not just challenging but actively unpleasant (Wilson et al., 2014).
We might immediately wonder if there is a connection between this aversion to solitary thinking and the way we learn, particularly why some people find enjoyment in the learning process while others do not. This question has also been explored in long-term studies by the Human Performance Group at NASA's Ames Research Center, which investigates the intricate relationship between mental effort, learning, and cognitive performance.
Mental Effort as an Unpleasant Experience
Building on this, further research reinforces the notion that mental effort is inherently unpleasant. In a study by Bijleveld et al. (2024), the NASA Task Load Index was employed to assess participants' experiences of cognitive effort and associated negative emotions. The findings revealed a strong correlation between higher cognitive load and negative affect, suggesting that people often engage in mentally demanding tasks like Sudoku or chess not for the enjoyment of the challenge itself, but for the reward that follows. This aligns with the idea that mental effort is frequently perceived as burdensome, further complicating our understanding of why some individuals find pleasure in learning while others do not (Bijleveld et al., 2024).
An open question that arises from this discussion is whether activities like Sudoku and chess, or even casual games like Candy Crush, truly constitute higher-order cognitive thinking. While these tasks undoubtedly involve pattern recognition and problem-solving, it is worth questioning whether they engage the deeper, more reflective forms of thinking typically associated with intellectual effort. Is pattern recognition alone sufficient to be considered "thinking," or does true cognitive engagement require more complex processes such as abstract reasoning, critical analysis, and creative problem-solving? This question challenges our understanding of what constitutes genuine cognitive effort and whether the discomfort of thinking is tied to these more sophisticated mental activities.
Learning Patterns vs Thinking: The Cognitive Trade-Off
Implicit Statistical Learning vs Executive Functions
Recent studies have highlighted a surprising conflict between different cognitive abilities. Pedraza et al. (2024) discovered that individuals who excel in implicit statistical learning—unconsciously detecting patterns and regularities—may struggle with tasks requiring active thinking and decision-making. This finding suggests that reliance on one cognitive system can diminish the efficacy of another, highlighting a potential competitive evolution in the brain's use of different neurocognitive processes (Pedraza et al., 2024).
Considering that there appear to be at least two distinct types of cognition at play, this raises the question: why do some individuals tend to favour one cognitive approach over the other? This inquiry into cognitive preferences becomes particularly relevant as we explore the interplay between implicit statistical learning and executive functions.
Two Types of Thinking
Implicit statistical learning and executive functions represent two distinct ways of thinking. The former operates unconsciously, allowing for the rapid detection of patterns, while the latter involves higher-order cognitive processes, such as planning and decision-making, primarily managed by the prefrontal cortex. Understanding the interplay between these systems is crucial for comprehending why some individuals may find certain types of thinking more taxing than others (Pedraza et al., 2024).
Does this suggest that individuals are more inclined to engage in higher-order cognition when they recognise that it leads to a tangible reward? If so, what does this imply about our motivations for complex thinking and decision-making? Let's delve deeper into this intriguing question to better understand the underlying factors that drive cognitive preferences and behaviours.
The Role of Cognitive Preferences: Need for Cognition vs Intelligence
Need for Cognition: A Double-Edged Sword?
The concept of 'need for cognition' refers to an individual's tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities. However, a high need for cognition does not necessarily equate to higher intelligence. While people with a strong need for cognition may perform better in certain intellectual tasks, the benefits of this trait in real-world settings, such as emotional stability and social interactions, are less clear. Liu and Nesbit (2024) argue that while need for cognition is positively correlated with academic achievement, its generalisability across different contexts and populations is limited, suggesting the need for more nuanced research (Liu & Nesbit, 2024).
Liu and Nesbit's (2024) conclusions might suggest that excessive cognitive engagement is detrimental to psychological well-being, but this interpretation is often overstated. The notion that individuals who engage in deeper thinking are more psychologically unstable is misleading. While there may be nuances in the relationship between cognitive effort and well-being, it is not accurate to broadly claim that more thinking leads to greater instability.
Fluid Intelligence and Self-Efficacy
The relationship between need for cognition and intelligence, particularly fluid intelligence, offers additional insights into this complex dynamic. Fluid intelligence, which involves the ability to solve problems, think logically, and adapt to new situations, has been found to correlate with a higher need for cognition in some research. However, this does not imply that individuals with a high need for cognition are necessarily more intelligent overall.
A study by Fleischhauer et al. (2010) examined whether need for cognition is related to personality traits or intelligence, finding that people who relish mental challenges often score higher on fluid intelligence tests. Yet, this raises the question: if higher fluid intelligence and a love for thinking do not always align with traditional measures of intelligence, what does it mean to be intelligent? The study underscores that while need for cognition is a stable personality trait, it is distinct from intelligence and must be understood in its own right (Fleischhauer et al., 2010).
By exploring the relationship between fluid intelligence, self-efficacy, and need for cognition, we can better understand the nuances of how and why some individuals engage more deeply with cognitive challenges, and how this engagement influences their overall well-being and performance.
Deeper Thinking as Compensation for Lower Intelligence?
Polymaths: Integrating Statistical Thinking and Higher-Order Problem Solving
Polymaths, individuals who excel in multiple fields, often demonstrate an exceptional ability to integrate statistical thinking with higher-order problem-solving. This unique cognitive combination allows them to apply both pattern recognition and abstract reasoning across various domains. Research suggests that polymaths possess high cognitive flexibility, enabling them to switch seamlessly between different types of thinking. This flexibility is supported by strong working memory and executive functions, which are crucial for managing and integrating diverse knowledge bases (Kaufman & Gregoire, 2015).
Cognitive flexibility in polymaths is further linked to their creativity and openness to experience—traits that facilitate the exploration and connection of disparate ideas. This ability to merge structured, implicit learning with unstructured, creative thinking enables polymaths to innovate and excel across multiple disciplines (Simonton, 2009). While the intersection of statistical thinking and higher-order cognition in polymaths has not been extensively studied, existing research on creativity and cognitive flexibility provides valuable insights into how these abilities might co-exist and enhance one another.
The cognitive strengths of polymaths suggest that their success across varied fields may stem from the interplay between these cognitive processes. By leveraging both statistical learning and abstract problem-solving, polymaths can navigate complex problems and integrate knowledge in ways that specialists in a single field might not, offering a model for interdisciplinary excellence and innovation.
Beyond the Brain: The Role of Embodied Cognition
Physical Movement as a Cognitive Tool
Embodied cognition challenges the traditional view that thinking is confined to the brain. Kirsh (2010) explored how dancers use physical movement to aid their thinking processes. By 'marking'—a practice where dancers perform a phrase in a reduced manner—they can better understand and refine their movements. This suggests that physical movement can replace or enhance mental computation, offering a compelling example of how cognition can be distributed across the body (Kirsh, 2010).
From this, we can learn that the ideal way of thinking would indeed be beneficial for physiological health as well, because a healthy body supports better thinking, echoing the classic quote "Mens sana in corpore sano" (Juvenal, Satire X).
Beyond the Dualist Approach to Cognition
The concept of embodied cognition extends beyond physical movement. Ale et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review of research in child–computer interaction, revealing that embodied cognition is a significant area of study. This approach moves beyond the traditional dualist perspective, suggesting that cognitive processes are not solely brain-based but also involve interactions between the body and the environment (Ale et al., 2022).
This perspective underscores why cognition is not just a topic of interest in cognitive science, medicine, and psychology, but also a fundamental issue in philosophy, particularly in relation to the enduring body-mind problem, which explores the intricate connections between physical and mental states. This raises a profound question: when thinking occurs, who—or what—is actually doing the thinking?
Biosymbionts: The Microbiome and Cognitive Processes
The Microbiome's Role in Social Behaviour
The relationship between the microbiome and cognition has garnered increasing attention. Sarkar et al. (2020) discuss how the gut microbiome influences social behaviour, neurochemicals, and even gene expression. These findings suggest that the microbiome could play a crucial role in shaping cognitive processes and social interactions, challenging the notion that cognition is purely a brain-based phenomenon (Sarkar et al., 2020).
So where exactly does thinking occur within the body, and through what mechanisms do we achieve a sense of unity between mind and body?
Minimal Cognition in Every Cell?
The idea that cognition could extend beyond complex organisms to even the simplest forms of life is explored by Friedmann (2015). This perspective posits that basic cognitive functions might exist in all living cells, blurring the lines between what we traditionally consider 'thinking' and basic biological processes. Such a view invites a reevaluation of how we define and study cognition across different species (Friedmann, 2015).
One of the often overlooked questions is that of agency. We can only be held accountable for our actions if there is a clear theoretical and empirical connection between our intentions and those actions. Current legal debates already grapple with the extent to which individuals can be held responsible under the influence of drugs, whether there is a responsibility to avoid such substances, and whether addiction can excuse certain behaviours. Similarly, considerations around mental illness and temporary states of alienation further complicate this issue. Now, the question of agency becomes even more complex when we consider the possibility that our gut bacteria might influence our behaviour—could we, in theory, even blame our microbiome?
Conclusion
The research discussed in this article underscores the complexity of intelligence and the diverse ways in which different cognitive systems function. From the discomfort of solitary thinking to the competitive interplay between cognitive abilities, it is clear that thinking is not a uniform experience for all. The role of embodied cognition and the microbiome further complicates our understanding, suggesting that cognition is not confined to the brain but is distributed across the body and even influenced by microorganisms. As we continue to explore these open questions, it becomes increasingly important to adopt a holistic approach to understanding intelligence—one that recognises the interplay between mental, physical, and even microbial processes. This holistic perspective also raises critical questions about responsibility, accountability, and social peace. If our thoughts and actions are influenced by factors beyond our conscious control, such as gut bacteria or embodied experiences, how do we define personal responsibility? How can we ensure accountability in a way that maintains social harmony while acknowledging the complex factors that shape human behaviour? These are crucial considerations as we deepen our understanding of the intricate nature of cognition.
References
Ale, M., Sturdee, M., & Rubegni, E. (2022). A systematic survey on embodied cognition: 11 years of research in child–computer interaction. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 33, 100478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100478.
Bijleveld, E., Vassena, E., & David, L. (2024). The unpleasantness of thinking: A meta-analytic review of the association between mental effort and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000443.
Fleischhauer, M., Enge, S., Brocke, B., Ullrich, J., Strobel, A., & Strobel, A. (2010). Same or different? Clarifying the relationship of need for cognition to personality and intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(1), 82-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209351886
Friedmann, H. C. (2015). Minimal cognition in every cell? Frontiers in Microbiology, 6, 264. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00264.
Juvenal. (1999). The Satires of Juvenal (S. M. Braund, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published ca. 110 CE)
Kaufman, S. B., & Gregoire, C. (2015). Wired to Create: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Creative Mind. TarcherPerigee.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 637-671. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196323
Kirsh, D. (2010). Thinking with the body. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. https://cogsci.ucsd.edu/~dkirsh/papers/Thinking-with-the-body.pdf.
Liu, Q., & Nesbit, J. C. (2024). The relation between need for cognition and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 94(2), 155-192. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231160474.
Sarkar, A., Harty, S., Johnson, K. V.-A., Moeller, A. H., Carmody, R. N., Lehto, S. M., Erdman, S. E., Dunbar, R. I. M., & Burnet, P. W. J. (2020). The role of the microbiome in the neurobiology of social behaviour. Biological Reviews, 95(4), 1159-1179. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12603.
Simonton, D. K. (2009a). Creativity as a Constrained Stochastic Process. In Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation (pp. 67-85). Oxford University Press.
Simonton, Dean Keith. (2009b). Scientific Creativity as a Combinatorial
Process: The Chance Baseline. 10.1007/978-1-4020-9877-2_4.
Unsworth, N., Spillers, G. J., & Brewer, G. A. (2009). Individual differences in working memory capacity and reasoning: Examining the relationship between working memory, secondary memory, and fluid intelligence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(6), 1574-1587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017324
Wilson, T. D., Reinhard, D. A., Westgate, E. C., Gilbert, D. T., Ellerbeck, N., Hahn, C., Brown, C. L., & Shaked, A. (2014). Just think: The challenges of the disengaged mind. Science, 345(6192), 75-77. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250830.
SOBRENOSOTROS
PS21 es un grupo de trabajo formado por personas polímatas que ponen sus habilidades al servicio de las empresas e instituciones para la innovación y creación de soluciones inteligentes facilitando así la transición hacia la economía 5.0.
Comentario Blogger
Comentario Facebook