Talk:Einstellung effect

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

X-Y Problem

I've been reading up on the "X-Y Problem" which it seems is generally considered a special case of the "Einstellung Effect". I was interested to see that this special case does not seem to be directly covered by the related articles on the subject. I am new to Wiki, and don't know if the "X-Y Problem" deserves its own article or merely a subsection in the "Einstellung Effect" article. Any thoughts? Good discussion on the problem can be found on this[1] meta.stackexchange thread. (HeyItsSam (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Einstellung is not an original contribution by Luchins (1942) as it is stated. It has been described before by Edmund Husserl (1859 -1938). See website[2] or you can contact Prof. Ahmet İnam [3] about the details.

Kindly consider this information for an update.

Why mention a statistically insignificant conclusion?

"The female group showed slightly more (although statistically insignificant) Einstellung effects than the male group." Would it be less misleading to say "The female group did not show statistically different Einstellung effects than the male group."? The way it is now frames it as if there actually was a meaningful difference, when the whole point of a statistical significance test is to say that the difference isn't meaningful... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.229.217.32 (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the phrase "statistically insignificant" is almost always used incorrectly. I have made the most minor rewording, as I can't access the original finding. --Aechase1 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hebbian learning

I am concerned about the paragraph on Hebbian learning in the Explanations and Interpretations section. This paragraph strikes me as overly simplistic and speculative, and provides very little real insight into the Einstellung effect. Basically, you cannot explain a complex behaviour like the Einstellung effect with an extended metaphor about one (very limited) model of neuronal dynamics. A paragraph about the neurological/neuroscientific underpinnings of the Einstellung effect should also refer to the broader literature on learning-set theory, predictions and prediction errors, and outcome–expectancy learning. If someone is able to rewrite this section before me, please do! -- Aechase1 (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this mere illusion of the problem stemming from incomplete ambiguous task formulation?

Frankly, those two types of solutions are not conflicting, they are complementing. It is the question of optimization. Actually, Luchin had to ask one of those two questions: either "You need to measure NNN of water. Answer as fast as you can." or "You need to measure NNN of water. Make the procedure as fast as you can". The former is "optimization for latency (reaction time)" and the latter is "optimization for throughput (sustained performance)". Those are two different problems. Will you go by airliner or bicycle? You don't know until you know how far you should go. It would be impractical to run from Africa to Australia by bicycle. It would be equally weird to require Boeing to attend your neighbor birthday party. So the real problem that Luchin tested for was not "how you measure the water" but "how you guess what I asked you for, if I would not give you complete information". As he was asking people for one-time ad hoc solution rather than setting pattern of repetitive process, people derived it is the "optimization for reaction time" and focused on providing the fastest answer not the optimal procedure. 85.90.120.180 (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]