And guess what? As reported in the April issue of the journal Psychological Science, the professors did better than the undergraduates but not as brilliantly as one might expect of the scientific elite. Even these experts were significantly worse at classifying plants than they were at categorizing animals. That is, even a lifetime of advanced scientific training did not trump the tendency to view plants as artifacts. What’s more, the biologists were not much better than undergrads at classifying nonliving things such as clouds and rivers. Goldberg, Thompson-Schill and their colleagues are following up with neuroimaging work to see if they can identify the roots of such naive thinking in the developing brain.

Children may be natural-born taxonomists, but they are not all that good at it. That is because they have a deep-wired urge to see the world as designed and simple—and to be at the center of it all. Apparently that impulse never entirely goes away.

Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Don't Know Much Biology."

This article was originally published with the title Don't Know Much Biology.

5 Comments

1. 1. bongobimbo 03:38 PM 9/8/09

   I expect this is why many persons avoid eating meat but can pull up and eat plants without single moral twinge or qualm of fellow-feeling.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. kilingtonskier 08:37 AM 9/9/09

   I would love to have the authors provide us the study questions. The results they provided are not surprising given much of humanity's demonstration of self indulgence.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. bongobimbo in reply to kilingtonskier 04:41 PM 9/9/09

   I would, too!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. karlchwe 11:00 PM 9/9/09

   "That is, even a lifetime of advanced scientific training did not trump the tendency to view plants as artifacts."
   
   "Artifacts" means objects constructed by humans, or literally, "made by skill." The author means "non-living".

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. hs96dlw 02:36 PM 1/2/10

   professor anderson,
   
   unfortunatley i don't have full access to these articles, but following your reference i came along this:
   
   "In every society, people tend to think about plants and animals in special ways that are distinct from the ways in which they ordinarily think about other things in the world, such as stones, tools or even people." Evolution and Devolution of Knowledge: A Tale of Two Biologies
   Journal article by Scott Atran, Douglas Medin, Norbert Ross; Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 10, 2004
   
   http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=L1TdpXsVSQbsXQnL1FQHZ25hGbs5RlQ4kDYws54W1D72PmcvJY9W!-1986555990!1888687908?docId=5006474212
   
   perhaps, just as the professors did better than the undergraduates, very young children of rural cultures may do better than the professors. but not as brilliantly as one might expect.
   
   are "movement" and "naturalness" cross-cultural means to catogerizing nature or industrial-specific? if you have some references, especially those that are free to cash strapped lay people, i'd be interested in following up the question.
   
   thanks.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this