Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T03:29:51.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

What is the purpose of cognition?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Aba Szollosi
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney2052, Australia. [email protected]@unsw.edu.au
Ben R. Newell
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney2052, Australia. [email protected]@unsw.edu.au

Abstract

The purpose of human cognition depends on the problem people try to solve. Defining the purpose is difficult, because people seem capable of representing problems in an infinite number of ways. The way in which the function of cognition develops needs to be central to our theories.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gaissmaier, W. & Schooler, L. J. (2008) The smart potential behind probability matching. Cognition 109(3):416–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammond, K. R. (2000) Coherence and correspondence theories in judgment and decision making. In: Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader, 2nd edition, ed. Conolly, T., Hammond, K. R. & Arkes, H., pp. 5365. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieder, F. & Griffiths, T. L. (2017) Strategy selection as rational metareasoning. Psychological Review 124(6):762–94. doi:10.1037/rev0000075.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marr, D. (1982) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Newell, B. R. (2005) Re-visions of rationality? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(1):1115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newell, B. R. & Shanks, D. R. (2014) Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37(1):119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulze, C. & Newell, B. R. (2016) More heads choose better than one: Group decision making can eliminate probability matching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23:907–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szollosi, A., Liang, G., Konstantinidis, E., Donkin, C. & Newell, B. R. (2019) Simultaneous underweighting and overestimation of rare events: Unpacking a paradox. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 148(12):2207–17. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tran, R., Vul, E. & Pashler, H. (2017) How effective is incidental learning of the shape of probability distributions? Royal Society Open Science 4(8):170270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deutsch, D. (2011) The beginning of infinity. The Penguin Press.Google Scholar