Jonasz Maczyński /

What psychology can tell us about the human mind

Jonasz Maczyński
Jonasz Maczyński
Message

What psychology can tell us about the human mind

It is easy to assume that the mind gives us direct access to the external world. I notice something, so I assume that I have actually perceived it. I remember an event, so I assume that I remember it more or less as it was. Information comes to mind effortlessly, so it is easy to assume that this tells us a great deal about the information itself.

Cognitive psychology complicates this picture. It does not, however, portray human beings as defective. Rather, it shows how much happens between information from the world and what ultimately becomes part of our experience. Attention selects, memory reconstructs, metacognition allows us to evaluate our own cognitive processes, and heuristics simplify problems when we cannot fully process all the available information.

When I look at these processes together, I begin to understand more clearly why our cognition does not give us a complete picture of reality. The human mind has to select, organize, and interpret information with limited resources. It cannot process everything with the same degree of accuracy and at the same time. This limitation does not mean, however, that cognition is simply flawed. It is instead one of the conditions under which the mind can function effectively.

What we pay attention to affects what remains

When I talk to someone in a crowded place, I focus primarily on the tone of their voice, the words they are saying, and their posture. I can still hear fragments of other conversations and see other people in the background, but I do not devote as much attention to them. This is an example of the selectivity of human attention. Out of the many stimuli and pieces of information available to us, only some make it into further processing.1

This matters for memory. Information that we pay more attention to is more likely to be remembered later, while divided attention can make it harder to form conscious memories.1

It is therefore not simply a matter of being unable to notice everything. What we focus our attention on also affects what we may later be able to remember. Our experience of an event therefore depends, in part, on what we paid attention to in the first place.1

Memory does not store the past like a recording

A similar shift in perspective emerges when we look at our memory. The intuitive picture is that of an archive in which an event is recorded and the relevant part is later played back. Research on constructive memory, however, suggests that remembering is a more complex process.2

A memory is not simply retrieved from a ready-made catalog. During remembering, information is reactivated and assembled into a representation of what we take to be a past event. Some elements of the experience may be retained, others omitted, combined with other elements, or attributed to the wrong source.2

The fact that memory works this way does not mean to me that memories are unreliable. Memory can be both useful and susceptible to distortion. Its constructive nature means that remembering requires us to reconstruct a past experience on the basis of information that is not always complete.2

We also evaluate our own cognition

Human beings can not only process information but also evaluate their own cognition. They can judge whether they understand something, whether they know something, and whether an answer seems correct.3 This is one of the central questions studied in metacognition.

One source of such judgments is the way cognition itself unfolds. Information may come to mind effortlessly or require greater mental effort. A thought may feel familiar or completely new. This text may seem easy or difficult.3

How something comes to mind can therefore influence how I evaluate what I am currently learning. If something feels familiar and comes to mind effortlessly, I may take it to be more credible or assume that I know it well. Such a feeling does not always tell me exactly what I want to know, however.3

This does not mean that subjective experiences are unreliable. They are simply one of the sources of information we use when evaluating our own cognition. Their importance depends on the situation and on what we are actually trying to find out.3

Simplification does not have to be a flaw

At this point, it would be easy to treat all of the mind's limitations as imperfections. I am not sure, however, that this perspective is justified. That would be too simple a conclusion.

We cannot analyze everything in every situation. Heuristics can be understood as ways of simplifying a problem that allow us to leave some information aside and arrive at a solution by using a simpler strategy. Under certain conditions, such simplification can also lead to accurate conclusions.4

Whether a given strategy works well nevertheless depends on the specific situation. Research on ecological rationality shows that simple ways of making decisions can fit the structure of a problem well. At the same time, more data and more complex calculations do not automatically guarantee a better outcome.4

Seen this way, limitations do not necessarily mean that the mind is functioning worse than it should. In a world full of uncertainty, selecting information and simplifying problems may be precisely what allows us to function effectively.

A Mind We Cannot See Directly

What these four observations have in common is that the mind does not have full access to the world. It first has to select what to focus on, and this affects what is most likely to be remembered. Memory then reconstructs past experience rather than simply replaying it.

We can also evaluate our own cognition and use the way it unfolds as an additional source of information. And when the world gives us more information than we can sensibly analyze, we rely on strategies that allow us to leave some of it aside.

When I put these elements together, psychology shows me something more complex than a simple list of errors in the human mind. It shows a system that has to operate under many constraints. Selectivity, constructive memory, metacognition, and simplification are not four random imperfections. They are parts of the way human beings deal with a reality they cannot process in its entirety.

This is only the beginning. The more I learn about how cognition works, the harder it becomes to treat my own experience as a simple picture of reality. That does not mean that we cannot understand reality. It rather means that it is worth remembering the limitations through which that understanding always passes.

References

  1. Cowan, N., Bao, C., Bishop-Chrzanowski, B. M., Costa, A. N., Greene, N. R., Guitard, D., Li, C., Musich, M. L., & Ünal, Z. E. (2024). The Relation Between Attention and Memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 75, 183–214. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-040723-012736
  2. Schacter, D. L., Norman, K. A., & Koutstaal, W. (1998). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Constructive Memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 289–318. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.289
  3. Schwarz, N. (2015). Metacognition. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, E. Borgida, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 1. Attitudes and Social Cognition (pp. 203–229). American Psychological Association. DOI: 10.1037/14341-006
  4. Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346