This week’s studies: Domain specificity and Counterintuitive Concepts

 book open pages library books knowledge reading, by ksheltonTo keep myself accountable, I’m posting my weekly readings.  The deal is: at least one study or chapter a day, no excuses.

This will also double as a nice record of book and article references, and a trail for those interested in the topics of Evolutionary Religious Studies, Cognitive Science of Religion, and Culture and Cognition.

This week’s studies

Sunday

Caramazza, A., Hillis, A., Leek, E. C., and Miozzo, M.  (1994).  “The Organization of Lexical Knowledge in the Brain: Evidence from Category- and Modality-specific Deficits.”  In: Hirschfeld, L. A. and Gelman, S. A., eds.  Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and CultureCambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Monday

Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J.  (1994).  “Origins of Domain Specificity: The Evolution of Functional Organization.”  In: Hirschfeld, L. A. and Gelman, S. A., eds.  Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and CultureCambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tuesday

Leslie, A. M.  “ToMM, ToBy, and Agency: Core Architecture and Domain Specificity.”  In: Hirschfeld, L. A. and Gelman, S. A., eds.  Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and CultureCambridge: Cambridge University Press.

– proposes three systems in the theory of mind unit: a mechanical system (Theory of Body or ToBy), an actional system, and an attitudinal system (both in Theory of Mind Mechanism or ToMM).  The first addresses an agent’s capacity for self-movement, the second addresses the agent’s goal-directed desires behind actions, and the third addresses beliefs about reality.

Wednesday

Premack, D. and Premack, A. J.  “Moral Belief: Form Versus Content.”  In: Hirschfeld, L. A. and Gelman, S. A., eds.  Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and CultureCambridge: Cambridge University Press.

– uses infant research to investigate the rules for determining basic human morality, though virtually any content can be poured into this basic form (varying by culture).

Thursday

Carey, S., and Spelke, E.  “Domain-specific Knowledge and Conceptual Change.”  In: Hirschfeld, L. A. and Gelman, S. A., eds.  Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and CultureCambridge: Cambridge University Press.

– finds that adult conceptions are not merely enriched versions of intuitive expectations, but that conceptions can change, whether explained by cultural learning or cognitive development.  Thus, we should not expect to find intuitive explanations to be universal in all cultures; they may be changed.

Friday

Bannerjee, K., Haque, O. S., and Spelke, E.  (2013).  “Melting lizards and crying mailboxes: Children’s preferential recall of minimally counterintuitive concepts.”  Cognitive Science, 10(1111).

– generally supports previous research on mnemonic effects of MCIs (Minimally Counterintuitive concepts).

Saturday

Upal, M. A.  (2011).  “Why Radicals Win the Newsday: Ratcheting-up of Cultural Counterintuitiveness in Rumors and NRM Doctrine.”  In: Carlson, L., Hoelscher, C., and Shipley, T. F., eds.  Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.  Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

– applies theory of culturally counterintuitiveness (not to be confused with domain-level counterintuitiveness) to two case studies.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: