Democracy's Pin Factory: Issue Specialization, the Division of Cognitive Labor, and Epistemic Performance

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 385-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin J. Elliott
Keyword(s):  
Division Of Cognitive Labor

Diversity, Rationality, and the Division of Cognitive Labor

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Muldoon
Keyword(s):  
Social Structure ◽  
Division Of Labor ◽  
Additional Insight ◽  
Division Of Cognitive Labor ◽  
Social Structure Of Science ◽  
The Social ◽  
Insight Into

Existing models of the division of cognitive labor in science assume that scientists have a particular problem they want to solve and can choose between different approaches to solving the problem. In this essay I invert the approach, supposing that scientists have fixed skills and seek problems to solve. This allows for a better explanation of increasing rates of cooperation in science, as well as flows of scientists between fields of inquiry. By increasing the realism of the model, we gain additional insight into the social structure of science and gain the ability to ask new questions about the optimal division of labor.

Epistemic Free Riding

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Dunn
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Free Riding ◽  
Group Problem ◽  
Group Problem Solving ◽  
Division Of Cognitive Labor ◽  
Group Member

Free riding occurs in the practical domain when some action is rational for each group member to perform but such that when everyone performs that action, it is worse overall for everyone. Dunn argues that some surprising empirical evidence about group problem-solving reveals that groups will often face cases where it is epistemically best for each individual to believe one thing, even though this is ultimately epistemically worse for the group that each member believes in this way. Dunn’s work is thus an extension of work on the division of cognitive labor and ways that group inquiry might differ from individual inquiry.

When science becomes too easy: Science popularization inclines laypeople to underrate their dependence on experts

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 1003-1018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Scharrer ◽  
Yvonne Rupieper ◽  
Marc Stadtler ◽  
Rainer Bromme
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
General Public ◽  
Important Task ◽  
Division Of Cognitive Labor ◽  
Science Popularization ◽  
Scientific Claims ◽  
Knowledge Claims ◽  
Lay Public

Science popularization fulfills the important task of making scientific knowledge understandable and accessible for the lay public. However, the simplification of information required to achieve this accessibility may lead to the risk of audiences relying overly strongly on their own epistemic capabilities when making judgments about scientific claims. Moreover, they may underestimate how the division of cognitive labor makes them dependent on experts. This article reports an empirical study demonstrating that this “easiness effect of science popularization” occurs when laypeople read authentic popularized science depictions. After reading popularized articles addressed to a lay audience, laypeople agreed more with the knowledge claims they contained and were more confident in their claim judgments than after reading articles addressed to expert audiences. Implications for communicating scientific knowledge to the general public are discussed.

scholarly journals Thinking together with material representations: Joint epistemic actions in creative problem solving

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanne Stege Bjørndahl ◽  
Riccardo Fusaroli ◽  
Svend Østergaard ◽  
Kristian Tylén
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Material Objects ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Group Interactions ◽  
Creative Processes ◽  
Division Of Cognitive Labor ◽  
Creative Solutions ◽  
Epistemic Actions ◽  
Physical Attributes ◽  
Creative Problem

Abstract How do material representations such as models, diagrams, and drawings come to shape and aid collective, epistemic processes? This study investigated how groups of participants spontaneously recruited material objects (in this case, LEGO blocks) to support collective creative processes in the context of an experiment. Qualitative microanalyses of the group interactions motivate a taxonomy of different roles that the material representations play in the joint epistemic processes: illustration, elaboration, and exploration. Firstly, the LEGO blocks were used to illustrate already well-formed ideas in support of communication and epistemic alignment. Furthermore, the material concretization of otherwise abstract ideas in LEGO blocks gave rise to elaboration: discussions, requests for clarification, and discovery of unnoticed conceptual disagreements. Lastly, the LEGO blocks were used for exploration. That is, the material representations were experimented on and physical attributes were explored resulting in discoveries of new meaning potentials and creative solutions. We discuss these different ways in which material representations do their work in collective reasoning processes in relation to ideas about top-down and bottom-up cognitive processes and division of cognitive labor.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document