How do great artists create? How do brilliant scientists solve the hardest problems in their field? Listen to them try to explain and you'll probably be disappointed. Artists say mysterious things like: "The picture just formed in my mind." Writers tell us that: "I don't know where the words come from." Scientists say they: "Just had a hunch."

Of course, not all scientists, artists and writers give such mysterious answers. Some talk about the processes they went through or what inspired their conceptual jump. But their explanations are almost invariable unsatisfying. They usually can't really explain how they made that vital leap of the imagination. This is strange. Why is it that otherwise brilliant and articulate people seem unable to adequately explain their thought processes? Don't they know how they did it?

What is true of great scientific and artistic leaps of imagination is also true in everyday life. When people are asked why they chose one career over another, one partner over another or one flavour of ice-cream over another, the same problems emerge. Often, people's answers are unconvincing or they just don't know.

Psychologists no longer find this inability to explain our internal mental processes strange. Like Freud all those years ago, modern cognitive psychologists have come to accept that a lot of the time we don't have much of a clue what's going on in our own minds, and there's evidence to prove it.

Mysterious thoughts

In a classic review of the literature, Nisbett and Wilson （1977） looked at many, many cognitive and social psychology studies conducted in the 1960s, 70s and earlier. These studies involved manipulating participants' behaviour. For an example, have a look at my report of this classic study of cognitive dissonance.

After reviewing all these studies where experimenters are messing with participants' minds, Nisbett and Wilson came to the following conclusions:

1. People are mostly unaware that their behaviour or thought processes have been changed by the experimenter.

2. Even if they are aware of the manipulation, they can't identify the process of change that occurred.

3. Most people cannot connect their changed thought or behaviour with the experimenter's manipulation.

Frustratingly, it seems that the most powerful workings of the mind are hidden away from view, even when we go rummaging around. If this is true, what about the explanations that people actually give for their behaviour? Where do these come from and are they ever right?

Nisbett and Wilson reach two further disturbing conclusions:

1. When coming up with their explanations, people don't seem to access the correct thought process（es）. If they do then it only happens when the explanation is plausible.

2. Sometimes people do report the correct reason for what they've done, but it's probably only a coincidence.

If Nisbett and Wilson are right it has profound implications for what we can know about our own thoughts and whether we can believe what other people say about theirs.

The evidence

In the next few posts I'll explain some of the evidence for these claims. But in the meantime think about a relatively common experience like driving. Most drivers have had the experience of having driven for a length of time without noticing any traffic signals, yet they still stop at every red light.

Some part of our minds has clearly been paying attention and it's these automatic unconscious processes that are keeping us alive. But there's a major difference between being on automatic pilot because it suits us, and being unable to get off automatic pilot even if we want to.

It's this idea of not having access to the vast majority of our own thoughts, even when we try, that has been such a major psychological insight for modern cognitive psychologists.

This post is part of a series on the hidden workings of our unconscious:

1. ? The Hidden Workings of Our Minds

2. Our Secret Attitude Changes

3. Why Problem Solving Itself is a Puzzle, Even to Poincare and Picasso

4. What We Don't Know About Shopping, Reading, Watching TV and Judging People

5. When We Are Fools to Ourselves

6. At the Heart of Attraction Lies Confusion: Choice Blindness

References

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. （1977）. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84（3）, 231-259.

那些伟大的艺术家是怎样进行创作的？那些卓越的科学家是如何解开一个个谜团的？他们对此做出的解释可能会让那你失望。那些艺术家是这样解释这件神奇的事情："那些画面就出现在我脑子里了。"作家告诉我们："我也不知道这些次从哪儿来的。"科学家说他们"就是有这么个直觉".

当然，并不是所有的科学家，艺术家和作家都能给出这样的玄乎的答案。有些人会叙述他们产生这些想法的过程，或者是什么东西激发他们的灵感。但是他们的解释大都不能令人满意。通常而言，他们很难真正解释出他们产生想法的重要步骤。这是件很奇怪的是儿。那些逻辑清晰成就非凡的人怎么就不能充分的解释他们的思维过程呢？他们怎么会不知道他们是怎样取得那些成就的呢？

那些发生在伟大科学家和艺术家身上飞跃的想象力同时也发生在每个人的日常生活中。当人们被问到他们为什么会选择某一种职业，选择某一种图案或某一种口味的冰激凌而不选择另外一种的时候，就会出现同样的问题。通常，人们的回答是难以置信的，或者他们本人也无法解释。

心理学家发现，无法解释内部思维过程的现象很普遍。就像很多年前佛洛伊德那样，现代认知心理学已经开始接受在大部分情况下，我们没有足够的线索来解释和证明我们的思维是怎样的。

不可思议的思维

经典文献中，Nisbett（尼斯贝特）和Wilson（威尔森）（1977）对六、七十年代甚至更早的认知和社会心理学文献进行了回顾，其中包括对被试行为控制的研究。可以参考我撰写的关于这一经典研究的报告：认知不一致。

回顾之前那些主试妨碍被试思维的实验研究，尼斯贝特和威尔森得出如下结论：

1. 人们大都无法意识到他们的行为和思想被主试改变了。

2. 即便他们意识到自己被控制了，他们也不能分辨出干涉的出现。

3. 很多人不能将他们思想和行为的改变同主试的控制联系起来。

令人失望的是，即便我们再怎么努力找，思维中的很多重要工作依旧是难以被察觉的。如果真的是这样，那又怎么解释行为的来源呢？而且这些行为还经常是正确的。

尼斯布特和威尔森得出两条令人不安的结论：

1. 当我们进行解释的时候，人们似乎并没有进入正确的思维过程。只有看上去可信的时候，他们才试图去解释。

2. 有些时候，人们能报告他们行为的真正原因，但是这些解释仿佛都是巧合而已。

如果尼斯布特和威尔森是对的，这就更深入的暗示了我们能对我们的思维了解多少，以及我们是不是能相信别人关于他们自己思维的解释。

证据

接下来我将解释几个能支持这些论断的证据。与此同时，你可以想像一下一个相关的普通经历，比如开车。许多司机都有开了很长时间车都没注意过交通标志的经历，但他们依旧在红灯前停车。

可以确信我们思维中的有些部分是自动集中注意的，这些无意识的过程保证我们能安全活着。然而，这同自动驾驶仪还是有很大区别的，因为这些思维是我们的一部分，即便我们想摆脱自动驾驶仪，也是不可能的。

即便尝试，我们也无法进入自己的绝大多数思维的想法成为了当代人之心理学家所关注的心理学问题。

以下是潜意识的秘密工作系列的一部分

1. 潜意识的秘密工作

2. 态度的悄悄改变

3. 为什么即便对于彭加莱和毕加索而言，解决问题本身是一个谜

4. 我们在购物，阅读，看电视和评价他人的时候有什么是不知道的

5. 当我们把自己当傻瓜

6. 迷惑背后的吸引力：盲目选择

参考文献

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. （1977）. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84（3）, 231-259.