Predicting advanced human thinking and problem-solving

Combining the disciplines of maths and psychology, Professor Scott Brown and his colleagues are exploring what goes on in the human mind in common scenarios. The goal is to measure and predict cognition to improve outcomes.

Scott is a cognitive scientist with a Bachelor of Science (Psychology), a Bachelor of Mathematics, a Bachelor of Science and a PhD in Psychology, all from the University of Newcastle.

Since earning his PhD in 2002, he has focused on applying modelling techniques to the understanding of higher-order cognitive processes—mostly memory and decision-making.

"Myself and a team of experts in psychology, maths and computing work to understand what happens in our minds during everyday activities," Scott explains.

"We use lab experiments and real-world data to test theories about how our brains function. These theories are often mathematical, helping us make precise measurements and predictions about human behaviour and thinking."

Scott collaborates with researchers in various fields, including ecology, medicine and engineering, but most importantly, he works with industry and community end-users.

He admits he stumbled into this field by accident. "I just kept following what seemed interesting, and eventually, it led me here!" But he also notes that part of the attraction is a mix of capability and curiosity.

"Understanding people is one of the hardest but most fascinating challenges I can think of!"

In the minds of medical patients

One of Scott’s current research focuses is understanding how medical patients navigate and make decisions about their treatment.

The team has conducted multiple studies involving cancer patients and individuals using GP Access After Hours services. They’re also working on a yet-to-be-published research focusing on individuals with thyroid cancer.

“During these studies, we’re asking patients about their preferences for different treatment options: two kinds of surgery or a ‘wait and see’ approach,” explains Scott.

“We’re interested in how the patients’ preferences sometimes differ from the clinicians’ recommendations and what role the different risk profiles of the treatment options play in this.”

The ultimate goal of this work is to empower doctors in Australia to provide patient-centred care grounded in a deep understanding of how patients think and feel.

Scott acknowledges that this work comes with its challenges, starting with gathering data.

“In some of the medical projects, the patients are going through an incredibly difficult time in their lives, so understandably, participating in research isn’t a priority for them,” he explains.

Another challenge, Scott adds, is the inherent randomness of people. “Decisions and behaviours are so variable and so easily disrupted that predicting them is extremely difficult.”

Turning the table on hackers

A further group Scott and his team are studying is computer hackers. You could say they’re hacking their brains!

This interesting piece of scientific research aims to understand and influence how hackers operate and what makes them perform better or worse.

It’s aimed squarely at state-sponsored hackers – so-called ‘advanced persistent threat’ actors who attack critical infrastructure from ports and defence bases through to communication systems, transport and utilities.

“Hackers routinely exploit the rest of us through our cognitive weaknesses: we fall for psychological tricks in phishing scams and other ways, says Scott. “But of course, the hackers are just people, too, with the same psychological biases and weaknesses as the rest of us.”

“Our team is discovering ways to use these cognitive biases against the hackers to impede their progress and reduce their effectiveness. We’re turning the tables on them!”

The project is being funded by a US intelligence agency, and involves running a ‘capture-the-flag’ (CTF) style hacking experiment, with rewards for participation up to US$500.

A CTF-style hacking experiment refers to a structured and competitive cybersecurity activity where participants solve challenges or complete tasks to ‘capture’ virtual flags, which represent specific objectives or vulnerabilities.

Through psychologically-informed network design and with detailed monitoring and analysis of participants, they can learn what might work against hackers in high-value environments.

Part of this work also involves delving into the world of artificial intelligence, examining how humans can better trust machines in the murky world of cyberwarfare—work that has been shared in the Newcastle Herald.

From frogs to public transport

In addition to their work with patients and cyber hackers, Scott and his team have been collaborating with researchers in ecology, using psychological theory to enhance citizen science efforts focused on saving endangered species—specifically frogs in the Blue Mountains.

They’ve also worked with Newcastle City Council to help measure and understand the behaviours of public transport users, as well as with Hunter Water to learn about their network’s performance.

Overcoming armchair psychologists

Scott is careful not to exaggerate the impact of his team’s work. However, he says they are making small differences as a result of their projects to date.

A notable challenge he says they face is around the value of what they do.

“Because everyone understands what it is to be human, they also tend to have their own opinions on psychological research,” Scott explains. “This can make it challenging to convince people of its necessity and importance.”

He continues, “Take cybersecurity, for example. Many companies are quick to invest in computer-based solutions. Yet, the biggest cybersecurity risk in nearly every organisation is its human workforce.”

To counter these misconceptions, Scott frequently shares two compelling examples.

“First,” he says, “introspection often leads us astray. We’re surprisingly inaccurate when assessing our own thoughts and actions, whether it’s how we remember, make decisions, or even think.”

“Second, mathematical theories in psychology—like the speed/accuracy tradeoff—allow us to make precise predictions. For instance, they can tell us exactly how many mistakes we might make if we prioritise speed over accuracy. This level of precision is impossible to achieve with intuition alone.”

“These predictions,” he emphasises, “are incredibly valuable.”

When addressing scepticism, like in the case of cybersecurity, Scott finds that referring to previous successes is often the most effective way to shift perspectives.

Inspiring brighter, deeper thoughts

Scott finds his work endlessly fulfilling.

“Every time I think I get bored, I'm excited all over again because there is always something brand new and interesting to learn about with humans. Just a few years ago, I didn’t know anything about advanced persistent threat actors in cyber hacking!”

When reflecting on what he’s most proud of, Scott points to his work with young researchers during their PhD studies and early careers.

“I’m proud of how they have gone on to think much bigger, brighter and deeper thoughts than me!”

If you’re interested in participating in the cyber hacking experiment, you can send Scott and his team an email at cyber.attack.study@gmail.com.