Bottlenecks in Capacity

This article proposes that an exaggerated attention bottleneck is a key mechanism that helps to explain the self-centred, callous, and antisocial behaviour of individuals with psychopathy. This theory is rooted in cognitive neuroscience and suggests that while psychopathic individuals can be exceptionally focused on a single goal or stimulus, they struggle to process multiple streams of information at the same time.

The authors describe the attention bottleneck as a normal cognitive function that filters information to make it manageable, but which can also block or delay the processing of secondary information. In psychopathic individuals, this bottleneck is thought to be amplified. This results in them over-prioritising goal-relevant information at the expense of other important contextual cues, such as punishment, risk, or the emotions of others.

The article provides evidence from various studies to support this model:

• Learning and Decision-Making: Psychopathic individuals show deficits in tasks that require tracking multiple types of information simultaneously, such as learning from both reward and punishment contingencies. Their performance is often normal when only one type of information needs to be monitored.

• Emotional Processing: Deficits in emotion recognition and response, often attributed to a core lack of fear or empathy, may instead be explained by this attentional model. When emotional cues are presented in complex or cognitively demanding ways (e.g., blended facial expressions, novel images), psychopathic individuals struggle to process them effectively. However, they can respond more typically to simple or familiar emotional stimuli, or when explicitly instructed to focus on the emotional cues.

• Social Processing: Psychopathic individuals can understand the thoughts and feelings of others when instructed to do so (controlled processing), but they fail to do so spontaneously, particularly in cognitively demanding social situations. This aligns with the bottleneck model, where they can direct their focus when it is goal-conducive but do not automatically integrate others’ perspectives.

In conclusion, the exaggerated attention bottleneck model offers a nuanced explanation for the complex and often contradictory behaviours seen in psychopathy. It suggests that deficits are not absolute but are highly dependent on the attentional and cognitive demands of a situation. This perspective may open new avenues for intervention and treatment by targeting these specific information-processing constraints.

This article argues that cognitive training programs do not enhance general cognitive ability (GCA), or intelligence, despite their popularity and the claims made by some researchers. The authors review experimental evidence from the most common types of cognitive training—including working memory (WM) training, video games, music instruction, chess instruction, and commercial “brain training” games—and conclude that any benefits are highly specific to the trained tasks, with minimal to no “far transfer” to general cognitive skills.

The authors build their case using several key points supported by meta-analyses:

• Lack of Transfer: While engaging in these activities improves performance on the specific task being practised (and sometimes on very similar tasks), these improvements do not generalize to broader cognitive abilities like fluid intelligence, memory, or processing speed.

• Methodological Flaws in Research: The authors contend that studies reporting positive effects often suffer from methodological weaknesses, such as the lack of an active control group. When studies are well-designed—for example, by comparing the training group to a group engaged in an alternative, active task—the alleged cognitive benefits disappear, suggesting they are likely due to placebo effects.

• Correlational vs. Causal Evidence: While people who engage in activities like music or chess often have higher GCA, this is a correlation, not a causal relationship. The evidence suggests that individuals with higher GCA are more likely to engage and succeed in these cognitively demanding activities, rather than the activities themselves increasing their GCA.

• Theoretical Implausibility: The idea of enhancing GCA through short-term training is inconsistent with broader findings in psychology. Research shows that even years of formal education have only a small impact on GCA, and GCA itself is known to be substantially heritable, making it difficult to change through environmental factors.

In summary, the authors conclude that the “cognitive-training controversy” can be resolved by a careful review of the evidence, which consistently shows a lack of meaningful, general cognitive enhancement. They recommend that future research and educational efforts should focus on teaching domain-specific skills and effective learning strategies rather than attempting to train general intelligence.