First Principles Thinking: The Neuroscience of Reasoning from Ground Truth

01The Override Problem

Smart Brains Default to Pattern, Not Analysis

The smartest people in the room are not always the best thinkers. In many cases they are the most efficient pattern-matchers, a profoundly different skill. When Graber, Franklin, and Gordon examined diagnostic errors at major U.S. academic hospitals, they found that cognitive factors (bias, heuristic shortcuts, premature closure) contributed to 74% of the errors reviewed.[24] These were not doctors with knowledge deficits. They were experienced clinicians whose brains had learned, through years of clinical exposure, to reach conclusions before the analysis had actually begun.

That finding sits at the centre of a question the cognitive sciences have been circling for decades: why does raw intelligence so often fail to prevent reasoning errors? Keith Stanovich's research programme, spanning more than two decades and normed on over 4,000 participants, has produced a striking answer. Intelligence and rationality are substantially dissociated.[2] The bias most resistant to correction, myside bias (the tendency to evaluate evidence in favour of positions you already hold), shows near-zero correlation with IQ.[17] Bright people do not fail at first principles thinking because they lack processing power. They fail because their brains are running the wrong programme.

The wrong programme has a name. Daniel Kahneman called it System 1: fast, automatic, effortless.[1] The cognitive science literature now calls it Type 1 processing: the brain's default mode of reaching conclusions through pattern recognition, associative memory, and heuristic shortcuts.[3] First principles thinking requires a different mode entirely: Type 2 processing, slower, more metabolically expensive, and requiring the deliberate suppression of the faster system's output.[5]

01 · The history

The question, then, is not whether first principles thinking matters; the diagnostic error data alone settles that. The question is whether it has a specific neural architecture, and whether that architecture can be modified. Over the past two decades, a convergence of neuroimaging, computational modelling, and behavioural research has produced an increasingly clear answer to both questions.

Wertheim and Ragni's 2018 meta-analysis synthesised 47 independent fMRI studies and confirmed that relational reasoning (the cognitive operation at the heart of first principles thinking) recruits a consistent frontoparietal network across all task types.[9] That network is not the brain's default. It is a deliberate override system that activates only when the default pattern-matching route is insufficient. Donoso, Collins, and Koechlin, publishing in Science, provided the first formal computational model of how the prefrontal cortex implements this override: two coordinated tracks, one evaluating the reliability of current strategies, the other generating new ones from scratch.[8]

The practical implication is direct. If first principles reasoning is a specific prefrontal operation, then it should be trainable, and the training evidence confirms exactly that. Houdé and Borst demonstrated that after targeted inhibitory control training, brain activity measurably shifts from posterior heuristic networks to left-prefrontal analytical networks.[10] The architecture is not fixed. It is responsive to deliberate practice.

02The Mechanism

The Override Circuit: How the Prefrontal Cortex Reasons from First Principles

Every problem that reaches your brain is initially handled the same way. The posterior cortex and default mode network fire a fast associative search: what does this look like? What happened last time? What pattern fits?[1] This is not laziness. It is engineering. The brain is a metabolically expensive organ (roughly 2% of body mass, consuming roughly 20% of resting energy) and its default strategy is to solve problems using the cheapest computational route available.[3] Evans and Stanovich call this cognitive miserliness: the brain's strong bias toward Type 1 processing, which reaches conclusions through pattern recognition rather than analysis.[3]

First principles thinking requires a different route. It demands that the brain detect the heuristic response, evaluate whether it is adequate for the current problem, and, if it is not, actively suppress it in favour of a slower, more resource-intensive computation. This is cognitive decoupling: holding a primary representation stable in working memory while running simulations on a secondary model.[3] The neural substrate of that operation is the frontoparietal network, a distributed system spanning the lateral prefrontal cortex, the parietal cortex, and the anterior cingulate, confirmed by Wertheim and Ragni's 47-study meta-analysis as the universal architecture of relational reasoning.[9]

That matters because the override is not a single event. It is a sequence, and each stage of that sequence can fail independently, producing different kinds of reasoning error.

The first-principles override circuit: a heuristic pattern-match in posterior cortex triggers a conflict signal in dACC, which activates the frontoparietal network for cognitive decoupling, culminating in relational integration at Brodmann Area 10, the brain’s specific address for reasoning from ground truth.

Diagram · HPC

Donoso, Collins, and Koechlin's 2014 Science paper provided the most precise account of how the prefrontal cortex implements this override.[8] Their computational model, validated against fMRI data, identified two coordinated processing tracks within the PFC. The medial track, anchored in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, continuously evaluates the reliability of the current strategy. When that reliability drops below a threshold, the lateral track activates: the frontopolar and lateral prefrontal cortex begin exploring alternative strategies or generating entirely new ones.[8]

This architecture explains a common experience. Most of the time, the medial track is sufficient: the current strategy is working, the pattern match is adequate, and the brain coasts on Type 1 output. First principles thinking corresponds to the lateral track's activation: the moment when the brain decides that no existing strategy is adequate and it must construct a new model from foundational elements. That is computationally expensive, which is why the brain avoids it whenever it can.

The critical gate between the two tracks is conflict detection. The dACC and anterior insula monitor the output of the heuristic system and flag mismatches between that output and task demands.[14] Dehaene and Changeux's work on the global neuronal workspace identified the timing of this transition: roughly 200–300 milliseconds after a stimulus, prefrontal-parietal activity diverges from the automatic processing route, signalling the onset of conscious deliberation.[5] Before that window, the brain is running on autopilot. After it, the override circuit has engaged.

03Evidence

The Five Strongest Studies on First Principles Reasoning

01The claim

The single load-bearing finding

The hero study finds 47 studies.

Not all evidence for first principles thinking science carries equal weight. A single fMRI study with twenty participants tells you something different from a meta-analysis synthesising forty-seven independent imaging studies. A retrospective case series tells you something different from a pre-registered controlled experiment with 3,446 participants. The hierarchy below ranks the five strongest studies in this evidence base by methodological weight (design quality, sample scope, measurement rigour, causal clarity, replication status, and field influence) using a 100-point rubric across six cr

Pooled estimate

02How we measured

Grading the reasoning studies

Studies scored on design, sample, rigour, causality, replication.

For reasoning science, causality is the hard criterion: neuroimaging locates the prefrontal circuit but cannot prove it causes outcomes, making training intervention studies the decisive tier of evidence.

Rubric weights

Design/35

Sample/20

Rigour/15

Causality/15

Replication/15

03The spread

Heterogeneity across 5 studies

Effect sizes across the ranked studies.

The hierarchy reveals something that individual studies obscure: the evidence is not just strong. It is convergent across methods. Neuroimaging identifies the circuit. Computational modelling explains its architecture. Behavioural measurement shows that the circuit's output is dissociable from intelligence. Training studies show that the circuit is modifiable. And controlled experiments demonstrate that the circuit's failure predicts real-world errors. That convergence matters because critics of cognitive science often point to replication failures in social psychology as evidence that the fi

Spread

87 → 76 /100

Range of point estimates across ranked studies.

04What does not hold

Negative knowledge

What the evidence base does not support.

The evidence also clarifies what first principles thinking is not. It is not general problem-solving ability (heavily g-loaded and correlating strongly with IQ). It is not expertise (domain-specific and reliant on pattern libraries built through experience). And it is not simply "slow thinking" in Kahneman's sense: the override circuit can fire quickly when trained, as Tetlock's superforecasters demonstrated by maintaining their accuracy advantage year after year through disciplined analytical habits.[21][42] Frederick's original CRT captures the distinction with elegant precision. The test's

Consumer dose

The studies

5 trials. One pooled answer.

Below: the anchor study in full; then the forest plot at scale; then the supporting trials in ranked order.

01Anchor

: The Neural Correlates of Relational Reasoning: A Meta-analysis of 47 Functional Magnetic Resonance Studies

Wertheim 2018 Meta-Analysis · Neuroimaging · Convergent Design

This meta-analysis synthesised 47 independent fMRI studies to map the neural architecture of relational reasoning. The frontoparietal network, spanning lateral prefrontal, parietal, and cingulate regions, was confirmed as the universal substrate across all reasoning task types. **Inductive reasoning

Rubric breakdown

Design27/35

Sample17/20

Rigour13/15

Causality10/15

Replication10/10

Citations10/10

Total 87/100

The strongest studies, ranked by methodological weight.

Each scored 0–100 against a six-criterion rubric, tagged by design and year; the anchor leads.

Anchor (Rank 1) Supporting

Rank Authors & title Journal · Year Finding Score

Pennycook

: Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning

· 2019

Across two pre-registered studies with a large online panel, Cognitive Reflection Test scores, not political ideology, predicted whether participants accurately distinguished real news from fake news. The effect held across partisan lines, demolishing the motivated reasoning explanation.

84/100

Donoso & Collins

: Foundations of human reasoning in the prefrontal cortex

· 2014

The prefrontal cortex implements reasoning via two coordinated tracks: the medial track (vmPFC/dACC) evaluates current strategy reliability; the lateral track (frontopolar/lateral PFC) explores alternatives and generates new strategies. First principles thinking maps to the lateral track.

82/100

Houdé

: Evidence for an inhibitory-control theory of the reasoning brain

· 2015

After bias-inhibition training, brain activity measurably shifted from posterior perceptual/heuristic networks to a left-prefrontal network (MFG, Broca's area, anterior insula, pre-SMA). The shift was visible in fMRI activation patterns and replicated across adults and children.

79/100

Stanovich & West

: The Rationality Quotient: Toward a Test of Rational Thinking

· 2016

The Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking (CART), normed on over 4,000 participants across 20 subtests, demonstrated that intelligence and rationality are substantially dissociated, particularly for myside bias, which shows near-zero correlation with IQ. The CART predicts real-world outcomes (investment returns, health decisions) over and above intelligence.

76/100

04Stakes

The cost of reasoning on autopilot

When the prefrontal override circuit does not fire, the brain defaults to heuristic processing, with consequences spanning medicine, finance, strategy, and information evaluation.

01 System 01 · System 01

Clinical Medicine

Graber's case review found cognitive factors in 74% of diagnostic errors.[24] Saposnik's systematic review confirmed that overconfidence and availability bias appeared in 36.5–77% of clinical decision scenarios, with 71.4% of therapeutic error studies documenting bias associations.[26] The errors follow the predictable pattern of a heuristic system that was never overridden. Croskerry's debiasing framework identifies premature closure as the single most common cognitive contributor.[25]

74%

In practice

You trust the diagnosis you just gave, but you arrived at it in four seconds and never questioned the initial impression

02 System 02 · System 02

Financial Decisions

Financial cognitive biases (loss aversion, overconfidence, availability heuristic) persist across income groups and educational levels.[29] The problem is not financial illiteracy. It is the brain's tendency to evaluate investments using the most easily recalled outcome rather than the base rate. Cognitive biases in anaesthesia and intensive care follow the same pattern: anchoring, availability, and framing effects documented in controlled vignette studies across high-stakes environments.[30]

In practice

The investment feels safe because you can easily imagine it succeeding, not because you analysed the base rate

System 03 · System 03

Organisational Strategy

McKinsey longitudinal research on 1,600+ U.S. companies found that organisations in the top third for dynamic resource reallocation earned approximately 30% higher total shareholder return than the bottom third.[28] Budget allocations show 90%+ year-over-year correlation, evidence of strategic rigidity driven by anchoring bias at the organisational level. Companies don't fail to reallocate because they lack data. They fail because the decision-makers' brains default to last year's pattern.

1,600

In practice

You are solving today's problem using your most recent successful framework, even though the situation is structurally different

04 System 04 · System 04

Information Evaluation

Pennycook and Rand's controlled study with 3,446 participants found that analytical thinking, not political ideology, predicted accuracy at identifying fake news.[7] People accept false claims not because they want to believe them, but because their brains do not flag the heuristic response for review. Berthet's systematic review confirmed consistent bias-related performance degradation across healthcare, finance, law, and management.[27]

3,446

In practice

The headline feels true because it confirms what you already believe, and your brain does not signal any alarm

05Protocol

A 4-Step First Principles Reasoning Protocol

Each step targets a specific stage of the prefrontal override circuit. The protocol is evidence-informed, not evidence-mandated. The science supports each step; it does not prescribe a rigid sequence.

The protocol, as a sequence.

Before any solution → After decomposition → After mapping → Ongoing

01 Step 01 · Before any solution

Assumption Decomposition

List every assumption the problem statement contains, then challenge each one: "Is this actually true, or is it borrowed from past experience?"

Why

Stanovich's miserliness framework identifies detection failure as the first point of override collapse: if you don't notice the assumptions, the override never fires.[16] Houdé and Borst showed that deliberate inhibition of heuristic responses activates the PFC analytical network.[10]

List every assumption the problem statement contains, then challenge each one: "

Common mistake

Confusing constraint clarification with assumption-challenging: asking "What are the constraints?" instead of "Which constraints are actually constraints and which are inherited analogies?"

02 Step 02 · After decomposition

Structural Mapping

Identify what relates to what, not what resembles what. Draw the causal and structural map of the problem.

Why

Christoff's RLPFC research shows that relational integration (holding multiple relations in mind simultaneously) is the core cognitive operation of first principles thinking.[11] Dunbar found that expert scientists naturally use structural analogies at this stage.[22]

Identify what relates to what, not what resembles what. Draw the causal and stru

Common mistake

Surface-feature fixation: noting that two things look similar rather than mapping the structural relationship between their components.

03 Step 03 · After mapping

Counterfactual Pressure

For each assumed-true claim, ask: "What would need to be false for this conclusion to be wrong?" Run an explicit counterexample search.

Why

Borst and colleagues showed that teaching counterexample search and exhaustivity checking specifically improved deductive reasoning performance in both children and adults, with measurable neural shifts in fMRI.[36]

For each assumed-true claim, ask: "What would need to be false for this conclusi

Common mistake

Stopping at the first counterexample rather than collecting a portfolio of potential disconfirmations.

04 Step 04 · Ongoing

Active Updating

Track prediction confidence over time. When evidence contradicts an expectation, treat it as information, not anomaly.

Why

Tetlock's superforecasters maintained accuracy by actively updating beliefs; actively open-minded thinking predicts rational performance above and beyond IQ across 17 of 20 CART subtests.[21][20] Reference-class forecasting, comparing the current case to the base rate rather than its surface features, produced measurable accuracy gains.[21]

Track prediction confidence over time. When evidence contradicts an expectation,

Common mistake

Defensive processing: explaining away disconfirmation as "a special case" rather than evidence that the ground-truth model needs revision.

Operational logic

The protocol is deliberately simple: four steps, no special tools, no technology. That is intentional. The training evidence consistently shows that explicit instruction in reasoning strategies produces the largest effects. Van Gelder, Bissett, and Cumming's controlled study found that semester-length argument mapping courses (which externalise the decomposition and structural mapping steps) improved critical thinking scores by approximately 0.8 standard deviations, roughly double the effect of standard instruction.[32] This represents the effect size from high-intensity, semester-length courses specifically, not from brief interventions.

Guerin, Wade, and Mano's systematic review found that all 13 studies examining near-transfer effects of reasoning training showed improvement in fluid reasoning.[34] The Education Endowment Foundation's large-scale analysis found that metacognitive instruction (teaching people how to monitor and regulate their own thinking) delivers an average of eight additional months of learning progress per year.[35] Roheger and colleagues' RCT with 4,310 healthy adults demonstrated that reasoning cognitive training produced significant improvements in grammatical reasoning, verbal short-term memory, and spatial working memory at six-month follow-up.[33]

The pattern is clear: the override circuit responds to training. The question is not whether training works. It is whether the training targets the right mechanism.

06Verdict

The verdict.

"Intelligence gets you into the room. Cognitive reflection decides whether you actually think once you're there." Maggie Toplak, York University

Bottom line

The brain was built to take shortcuts. The prefrontal cortex was built to catch them. First principles thinking is the decision to let it.

The neuroscience of first principles thinking converges on a single, actionable conclusion: your brain has a specific circuit for reasoning from ground truth, centred on the frontoparietal network and gated by the prefrontal cortex's conflict-detection and inhibitory-control systems. That circuit is not your brain's default. It fires only when the heuristic system's output is flagged as inadequate

01Claim

The override is real

First principles reasoning is a specific prefrontal operation, centred on the frontoparietal network, gated by conflict detection in the dACC, and executed through relational integration in Brodmann Area 10. It is not a metaphor. It is measurable neuroscience.

02Consequence

Default is dangerous

When the override circuit does not fire, the brain defaults to heuristic processing. The consequences are documented across medicine (74% of diagnostic errors), finance (persistent bias across income levels), strategy (30% shareholder return gap), and information evaluation (ideology-independent fake news susceptibility). The cost of autopilot thinking is concrete and quantifiable.

03Lever

Training works

Targeted training (argument mapping, inhibitory control exercises, metacognitive instruction) produces measurable improvements in both reasoning performance (0.8 SD) and neural activation patterns (posterior-to-frontal shift). The override circuit responds to deliberate practice. The evidence base includes RCTs, systematic reviews, and longitudinal studies with thousands of participants.

07Bibliography

48 sources · ~6h est. corpus read · 48 visible

Meta · 2 Review · 4 Journal · 40 Book · 2

Type

Sort

01 Journal

Kahneman, D2011

*Thinking, fast and slow*. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Thinking, fast and slow
02 Book

Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E2016

*The rationality quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking*. MIT Press.

The rationality quotient: Toward a test of rational thinking
03 Journal

Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E2013

Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate

Perspectives on Psychological Science223–241

doi: 10.1177/1745691612460685
04 Journal

Giedd, J. N2008

The teen brain: Insights from neuroimaging

Journal of Adolescent Health335–343

doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.01.007
05 Journal

Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J. P2011

Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing

Neuron200–227

doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.018
06 Book

Gigerenzer, G2007

*Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious*. Viking.

Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious
07 Journal

Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G2019

Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning

Cognition39–50

doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
08 Journal

Donoso, M., Collins, A. G. E., & Koechlin, E2014

Foundations of human reasoning in the prefrontal cortex

Science1481–1486

doi: 10.1126/science.1252254
09 Journal

Wertheim, J., & Ragni, M2018

The neural correlates of relational reasoning: A meta-analysis of 47 functional magnetic resonance studies

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience1734–1748

doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_01311
10 Journal

Houdé, O., & Borst, G2015

Evidence for an inhibitory-control theory of the reasoning brain

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00148
11 Journal

Christoff, K., Prabhakaran, V., Dorfman, J., Zhao, Z., Kroger, J. K., Holyoak, K. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E2001

Rostrolateral prefrontal cortex involvement in relational integration during reasoning

NeuroImage1136–1149

doi: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0922
12 Review

Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D2001

An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function

Annual Review of Neuroscience167–202

doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167
13 Journal

Morin, T. M., Moore, K. N., Isenburg, K., Ma, W., & Stern, C. E2023

Functional reconfiguration of task-active frontoparietal control network facilitates abstract reasoning

Cerebral Cortex5761–5773

doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhac457
14 Journal

Gronchi, G., et al2024

Dual-process theory of thought and inhibitory control: An ALE meta-analysis

Brain Sciences

doi: 10.3390/brainsci14010101
15 Journal

Frederick, S2005

Cognitive reflection and decision making

Journal of Economic Perspectives25–42

doi: 10.1257/089533005775196732
16 Journal

Stanovich, K. E2018

Miserliness in human cognition: The interaction of detection, override and mindware

Thinking & Reasoning423–444

doi: 10.1080/13546783.2018.1459314
17 Journal

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F2008

On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology672–695

doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672
18 Journal

Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E2011

The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks

Memory & Cognition1275–1289

doi: 10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1
19 Journal

Otero, I., Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S2022

Cognitive reflection, cognitive intelligence, and cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis

Intelligence

doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2021.101490
20 Journal

Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E2023

Actively open-minded thinking and its measurement

Journal of Intelligence

doi: 10.3390/jintelligence11020027
21 Journal

Tetlock, P. E., & Gardner, D2015

*Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction*. Crown.

Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction
22 Journal

Dunbar, K2001

The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition: The case of analogy

Trends in Cognitive Sciences6613(00) · 334–339

doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01698-3
23 Journal

Parsons, L. M., et al2022

The neural correlates of analogy component processes

Cognitive Science

doi: 10.1111/cogs.13116
24 Journal

Graber, M. L., Franklin, N., & Gordon, R2005

Diagnostic error in internal medicine

Archives of Internal Medicine1493–1499

doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.13.1493
25 Journal

Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., & Mamede, S2013

Cognitive debiasing 1: Origins of bias and theory of debiasing

BMJ Quality & Safety2012-0017

doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001712
26 Meta

Saposnik, G., Redelmeier, D., Ruff, C. C., & Tobler, P. N2016

Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: A systematic review

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making2911-016

doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0377-1
27 Review

Berthet, V2022

The impact of cognitive biases on professionals' decision-making: A review of four occupational areas

Frontiers in Psychology

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802439
28 Review

Fasolo, B., Heard, C., & Scopelliti, I2025

Mitigating cognitive bias to improve organizational decisions: An integrative review, framework, and research agenda

Journal of Management

doi: 10.1177/01492063241287188
29 Journal

Persistence of cognitive biases in financial decisions across economic groups2023

*Scientific Reports*, *13*, 9898

Scientific Reports1598-023

doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-36339-2
30 Journal

Cognitive biases in diagnosis and decision making during anaesthesia and intensive care2021

*British Journal of Anaesthesia*, *127*(5), 681–693. PMC8520040.

British Journal of Anaesthesia681–693
31 Journal

Debiasing training reduces confirmation bias in national risk analysts2025

*Scientific Reports*, *15*

Scientific Reports1598-025

doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-28794-w
32 Journal

Van Gelder, T. J., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G2004

Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology142–152

doi: 10.1037/h0087441
33 Journal

Roheger, M., Kalbe, E., Corbett, A., Brooker, H., & Ballard, C2020

Predictors of changes after reasoning training in healthy adults

Brain and Behavior

doi: 10.1002/brb3.1861
34 Meta

Guerin, J. M., Wade, S. L., & Mano, Q. R2021

Does reasoning training improve fluid reasoning and academic achievement for children and adolescents? A systematic review

Trends in Neuroscience and Education

doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2021.100153
35 Journal

Education Endowment Foundation2022

Metacognition and self-regulation: Teaching and Learning Toolkit. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk
36 Journal

Borst, G., et al2015

Inhibition of misleading heuristics as a core mechanism for typical cognitive development: Evidence from behavioural and brain-imaging studies

Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology21–29

doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12688
37 Journal

It is not what you think, it is how you think: A critical thinking intervention enhances argumentation, analytic thinking and metacognitive sensitivity2023

*Thinking Skills and Creativity*, *49*, 101355

Thinking Skills and Creativity

doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101355
38 Journal

Kroger, J. K., Sabb, F. W., Fales, C. L., Bookheimer, S. Y., Cohen, M. S., & Holyoak, K. J2002

Recruitment of anterior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in human reasoning

Cerebral Cortex958–965

doi: 10.1093/cercor/12.9.958
39 Journal

Laureiro-Martínez, D., & Brusoni, S2018

Cognitive flexibility and adaptive decision-making: Evidence from a laboratory study of expert decision makers

Strategic Management Journal1031–1058

doi: 10.1002/smj.2774
40 Journal

Working memory, reasoning, and expertise in medicine: Insights from functional neuroimaging2016

*Advances in Health Sciences Education*, *21*(3), 535–557

Advances in Health Sciences Education535–557

doi: 10.1007/s10459-015-9649-2
41 Journal

An fMRI study of scientists with a Ph.D. in physics confronted with naive ideas in science2021

*npj Science of Learning*, *6*, 18

npj Science of Learning1539-021

doi: 10.1038/s41539-021-00091-x
42 Journal

Superforecasting reality check: Evidence from a small pool of experts and expedited identification2020

*PLOS ONE*

PLOS ONE

doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232452
43 Journal

Jiang, J., et al2018

Thinking about thinking: A coordinate-based meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies of metacognitive judgements

Brain and Cognition142–153

doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2018.06.009
44 Journal

Brain networks basis for deductive and inductive reasoning: A functional MRI study2023

*Brain Sciences*, *13*(12), 1665

Brain Sciences

doi: 10.3390/brainsci13121665
45 Journal

The prospects of working memory training for improving deductive reasoning2015

*Frontiers in Human Neuroscience*, *9*, 56

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00056
46 Journal

Bunge, S. A., & Zelazo, P. D2006

A brain-based account of the development of rule use in childhood

Current Directions in Psychological Science118–121
47 Review

Abrami, P. C., et al2008

Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis

Review of Educational Research1102–1134

doi: 10.3102/0034654308326084
48 Journal

Cognitive reflection is a distinct and measurable trait2024

*PNAS*, *121*(40), e2409191121. ---

PNAS

The First Principles Brain: The Neuroscience of Reasoning from Ground Truth.

Smart Brains Default to Pattern, Not Analysis

The Override Circuit: How the Prefrontal Cortex Reasons from First Principles