Chapter Four
So far in David and Goliath, we’ve looked at the ways in which
we are often misled about the nature of advantages. Now it is time to turn our
attention to the other side of the ledger. What do we mean when we call
something adisadvantage? Conventional wisdom holds that a disadvantage
is something that ought to be avoided—that it is a setback or a difficulty that
leaves you worse off than you would be otherwise. But that is not always the
case. In the next few chapters, I want to explore the idea that there are such
things as “desirable difficulties.”
That concept was conceived by Robert Bjork and Elizabeth Bjork, two
psychologists at the University of California, Los Angeles, and it is a
beautiful and haunting way of understanding how underdogs come to excel.
Consider, for example, the following
puzzle.
1. A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total.
The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
What’s your instinctive response? I’m
guessing that it is that the ball must cost 10 cents. That can’t be right,
though, can it? The bat is supposed to cost $1.00 more than the ball. So if the ball costs 10
cents, the bat must cost $1.10, and we’ve exceeded our total. The right answer
must be that the ball costs 5 cents.
Here’s another question:
2. If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to
make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?
The setup of the question tempts you to
answer 100. But it’s a trick. One hundred machines take exactly the same amount
of time to make 100 widgets as 5 machines take to make 5 widgets. The right
answer is 5 minutes.
These puzzles are two of the three
questions that make up the world’s shortest intelligence test.1 It’s called the Cognitive Reflection Test
(CRT). It was invented by the Yale professor Shane Frederick, and it measures
your ability to understand when something is more complex than it appears—to
move past impulsive answers to deeper, analytic judgments.
Frederick argues that if you want a quick
way to sort people according to their level of basic cognitive ability, his
little test is almost as useful as tests that have hundreds of items and take
several hours to finish. To prove his point, Frederick gave the CRT to students
at nine American colleges, and the results track pretty closely with how
students from those colleges would rank on more traditional intelligence tests.2 Students from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology—perhaps the brainiest college in the world—averaged 2.18 correct
answers out of three. Students at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh,
another extraordinarily elite institution, averaged 1.51 right answers out of
three. Harvard students scored 1.43; the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
1.18; and the University of Toledo 0.57.
The CRT is really hard. But here’s the
strange thing. Do you know the easiest way to raise people’s scores on the
test? Make it just a little bit harder. The psychologists Adam Alter and
Daniel Oppenheimer tried this a few years ago with a group of undergraduates at
Princeton University. First they gave the CRT the normal way, and the students
averaged 1.9 correct answers out of three. That’s pretty good, though it is
well short of the 2.18 that MIT students averaged. Then Alter and Oppenheimer
printed out the test questions in a font that was really hard to read—a 10
percent gray, 10-point italics Myriad Pro font—so that it
looked like this:
1. A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in
total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
The average score this time around? 2.45. Suddenly, the
students were doing much better than their counterparts at MIT.
That’s strange, isn’t it? Normally we
think that we are better at solving problems when they are presented clearly
and simply. But here the opposite happened. A 10 percent gray, 10-point italics
Myriad Pro font makes reading really frustrating. You have to squint a little
bit and maybe read the sentence twice, and you probably wonder halfway through
who on earth thought it was a good idea to print out the test this way.
Suddenly you have to work to read the question.
Yet all that extra effort pays off. As
Alter says, making the questions “disfluent” causes people to “think more
deeply about whatever they come across. They’ll use more resources on it.
They’ll process more deeply or think more carefully about what’s going on. If
they have to overcome a hurdle, they’ll overcome it better when you force them
to think a little harder.” Alter and Oppenheimer made the CRT more difficult.
But that difficulty turned out to be desirable.
No comments:
Post a Comment