在《超越智商》一书中，作者对「理性障碍」做出了以下定义：
理性障碍是指个体在智力水平正常的情况下，无法理性地思考与行动。该定义包括个体在信念形成、判断信念一致性，以及根据目标采取行动等方面遇到困难。虽然理性障碍常会伴随其他障碍一同出现（比如，感觉机能损伤），但这些障碍并不是导致理性障碍发生的本质性原因。理性障碍的主要诊断标准是思考与行为中所表现出来的理性程度明显低于个体的智力水平（智力测验成绩）。
并有意提到：
我这样做的目的是想把理性障碍概念用作“直觉泵”。“直觉泵”一词是由哲学家丹尼尔·丹尼特（Daniel Dennett）提出的，意指“在思维实验中通过不同变量来激发系列直觉的工具。一般而言，直觉泵并不是驱动发现创造的引擎，而是说服或教育的工具——一种使别人采用与你相同的方式思考的方法。
好，那到底什么是「直觉泵」？
Daniel Dennett 在1980 年首次提出了 Intuition Pump 的概念，并另著有《Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking》一书。在书中，作者给出了这样的定义：
Other thought experiments are less rigorous but often just as effective: little stories designed to provoke a heartfelt, table-thumping intuition—“Yes, of course, it has to be so!”—about whatever thesis is being defended. I have called these intuition pumps.
即，Daniel Dennett 将一类思想实验称作为「直觉泵」，它们缺乏些许严谨，但同样高效。它们是一些精心设计过的小故事，用来触发由衷拍案的直觉——对，没错，就得这样！
对，没错，就是「理性障碍」！不是什么理性商、理性智力！
那另一类思维实验是怎样的？
Some thought experiments are analyzable as rigorous arguments, often of the form reductio ad absurdum, in which one takes one’s opponents’ premises and derives a formal contradiction (an absurd result), showing that they can’t all be right.
另一类思维实验则如严谨论点一样是可分析的，如归谬法。伽利略利用归谬法推导出，在空气阻力可以忽略的情况下，较重的物体在下落过程中并不会比较重的物体下落更快。
思维实验室哲学家们最喜爱的工具之一，而哲学上有名的「直觉泵」有哪些呢？
- 柏拉图的洞穴
- 教奴隶男孩几何学
- 笛卡尔的恶魔
- 霍布斯的自然状态
If you ever studied philosophy in college, you were probably exposed to such classics as Plato’s cave, in The Republic, in which people are chained and can see only the shadows of real things cast on the cave wall; or his example, in Meno, of teaching geometry to the slave boy. Then there is Descartes’s evil demon, deceiving Descartes into believing in a world that was entirely illusory—the original Virtual Reality thought experiment—and Hobbes’s state of nature, in which life is nasty, brutish, and short. Not as famous as Aesop’s “Boy Who Cried Wolf” or “The Ant and the Grasshopper,” but still widely known, each is designed to pump some intuitions. Plato’s cave purports to enlighten us about the nature of perception and reality, and the slave boy is supposed to illustrate our innate knowledge; the evil demon is the ultimate skepticism-generator, and our improvement over the state of nature when we contract to form a society is the point of Hobbes’s parable.
斯坦诺维奇还用了一个词：「说服」。
If we think of an intuition pump as a carefully designed persuasion tool, we can see that it might repay us to reverse engineer the tool, checking out all the moving parts to see what they are doing.
When Doug Hofstadter and I composed The Mind’s I back in 1982, he came up with just the right advice on this score: consider the intuition pump to be a tool with many settings, and “turn all the knobs” to see if the same intuitions still get pumped when you consider variations.
Daniel Dennett 表示，如果我们将「直觉泵」作为一个精心设计的说服工具，那么对它进行「逆向工程」，我们可以搞懂所有可以活动的部分，究竟在整个「直觉泵」中做了什么。
而侯世达则给出了一种更易于理解的说法：把「直觉泵」当做一个带有很多设置的工具，通过「调整旋钮」去查看是否有同样的直觉涌出。
这个说法实际上就像是理化实验课中常用的一种实验方法：控制变量法。通过控制思维实验中的各种变量，检查陷阱，确认当前所处的位置。
以古怪狱卒为例，Daniel Dennett 演示了如何使用「直觉泵」：
Here’s a short, simple example: the Whimsical Jailer. Every night he waits until all the prisoners are sound asleep and then he goes around unlocking all the doors, leaving them open for hours on end. Question: Are the prisoners free? Do they have an opportunity to leave? Not really. Why not?
...
So let’s identify, and turn, the knobs on the Whimsical Jailer. Assume—until proved otherwise—that every part has a function, and see what that function is by replacing it with another part, or transforming it slightly.
1. Every night
2. he waits
3. until all the prisoners
4. are sound asleep
5. and then he goes around unlocking
6. all the doors,
7. leaving them open for hours on end.
Here is one of many variations we could consider:
One night he ordered his guards to drug one of the prisoners and after they had done this they accidentally left the door of that prisoner’s cell unlocked for an hour.
而「直觉泵」又从何而来？Daniel Dennett 给出的答复是：
Many of the thinking tools I will present here are my own inventions, but others I have acquired from others, and I will acknowledge their inventors in due course.4 None of the tools on Doug’s list are his inventions, but he has contributed some fine specimens to my kit, such as jootsing and sphexishness.
意思就是我得通读你这本书咯？但是做「泵」的核心应该还是：going meta：
This self-conscious wariness with which we should approach any intuition pump is itself an important tool for thinking, the philosophers’ favorite tactic: “going meta”—thinking about thinking, talking about talking, reasoning about reasoning. Meta-language is the language we use to talk about another language, and meta-ethics is a bird’s-eye view examination of ethical theories. As I once said to Doug, “Anything you can do I can do meta-.” This whole book is, of course, an example of going meta: exploring how to think carefully about methods of thinking carefully (about methods of thinking carefully, etc.).
另有一段特别喜欢的话：
Like all artisans, a blacksmith needs tools, but—according to an old (indeed almost extinct) observation—blacksmiths are unique in that they make their own tools. Carpenters don’t make their saws and hammers, tailors don’t make their scissors and needles, and plumbers don’t make their wrenches, but blacksmiths can make their hammers, tongs, anvils, and chisels out of their raw material, iron.
那为啥要做「泵」呢？
You can’t do much carpentry with your bare hands and you can’t do much thinking with your bare brain.
—BO DAHLBOM
使用「泵」和创建「泵」的认知心理学原理是什么？我觉得应该是《超越智商》里提到的「认知去耦」：
为了能够进行假设性推理，一项关键能力是我们必备的，这种能力就是不将真实世界表征与假想的情景相混淆。比如，如若个体正在思考的备选目标与当前目标状态不同，他必须能够同时表征出当前目标和备择目标，并且保证它们之间泾渭分明。与之类似，我们需要能够区分出即将要采取的行动表征和认知建模中尝试过的备择行动表征。在行动实施阶段，前者一定不能受到后者的影响。否则，我们将要采取的行动将会被曾经思考过的备择行动方案干扰。
认知科学家将这种表征状态混淆的现象称为表征滥用（representa-tional abuse）。发展心理学家在试图探索儿童假装行为和假装游戏的起源（比如，小孩说“这根香蕉是电话”）时，表征滥用是他们研究的主要问题之一。儿童必须能够清晰分离香蕉与电话在心智中的表征，才能在游戏中把香蕉当作电话来玩。在一篇广为人知的文章中，发展心理学家艾伦·莱斯利（Alan Leslie）讨论了儿童假装的逻辑，提出了“去耦操作”（decoupling operation）一词，如图3-1所示[5]。图中，初级表征直接映射世界，和/或直接与某个反应相连。为了使假装模式化，莱斯利提出了次级表征。次级表征是初级表征的复制品，但与真实世界相分离，从而能够被操控，即模拟机制。
