Evidence
      Back to home
      1. Help Center
      2. Evidence

      A Literature Review of the Universal Patterns and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition

      an evolving literature base for DSRP patterns of thinking

      Citation: Cabrera D, Cabrera L. Cabrera, E. A Literature Review of the Universal Patterns and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition. Journal of Applied Systems Thinking (20) 6. (2020)

      DSRP Lit review Cabrera

      Keywords: complex cognition | cognitive structures | universality | systems thinking

      Abstract: This paper posits that universal atomic elements exist that underlie complex cognition. At its core, constructs are born of the dynamics of thinking operating on information. This elemental understanding of the structural underpinnings - and the dynamics between and among the elements - provides insight into the value of thinking and awareness of one’s thinking to everyday life and scientific inquiry. Knowledge of the structural and dynamical properties of human thought leads to generative, purposeful, and predictive cognitive acts that evolve one’s thinking. As a result, our mental models (comprised of information and thinking) of how systems work are better aligned with how they exist in the real world. This alignment yields better solutions, innovation and results. Continued inquiry into the universality of these structural elements has significant potential to advance understanding across a wide variety of academic disciplines. In other words, the study of cognition is deemed synonymous with the evolution of science and knowledge itself.

      References

      1. Spencer Brown G. Laws of form. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.; 1969.
      2. Olson ER. Why Is There Something Instead of Nothing? [Video]. Scientific American. 11 Mar 2014. Available: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-there-something-instead-of-nothing-video/. Accessed 20 Jul 2019.
      3. Euler L. The Seven Bridges Problem. 1736.
      4. Kolata G. Studying Learning In The Womb. Science. 1984;225: 302–303.
      5. Quinn PC, Brown CR, Streppa ML. Perceptual organization of complex visual configurations by young infants. Infant Behavior and Development. 1997. pp. 35–46. doi:10.1016/s0163-6383(97)90059-x
      6. Newman RS, Jusczyk PW. The cocktail party effect in infants. Percept Psychophys. 1996;58: 1145–1156. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8961826
      7. Gauthier I, Tarr MJ. Becoming a “Greeble” expert: exploring mechanisms for face recognition. Vision Res. 1997;37: 1673–1682. doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(96)00286-6
      8. Aubin T, Jouventin P. Cocktail-party effect in king penguin colonies. Proceedings Of The Royal Society Of London Series B-Biological Sciences. 1998;265: 1665–1673.
      9. Giurfa M, Menzel R, Srinivasan MV. The concepts of `sameness’ and `difference' in an insect. Nature. 2001;410: 930–933.
      10. Fry SN, Wehner R. Honey bees store landmarks in an egocentric frame of reference. Journal Of Comparative Physiology A-Neuroethology Sensory Neural And Behavioral Physiology. 2002;187: 1009–1016.
      11. Badre D. Cognitive control, hierarchy, and the rostro-caudal organization of the frontal lobes. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12: 193–200. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.004
      12. Bukach CM, Gauthier I, Tarr MJ, Kadlec H, Barth S, Ryan E, et al. Does acquisition of Greeble expertise in prosopagnosia rule out a domain-general deficit? Neuropsychologia. 2012;50: 289–304. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.11.023
      13. Rajalingham R, DiCarlo JJ. Reversible Inactivation of Different Millimeter-Scale Regions of Primate IT Results in Different Patterns of Core Object Recognition Deficits. Neuron. 2019;102: 493–505.e5. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2019.02.001
      14. Clark T. National boundaries, border zones, and marketing strategy_ A conceptual framework and theoretical model of secondary boundary effects.pdf. 1994.
      15. Coye D. The Sneakers/Tennis Shoes Boundary. American Speech. 1986. p. 366. doi:10.2307/454615
      16. Powers E, Cabrera L, Cabrera D. Distinguishing “Nerd” vs. “Geek.”
      17. Peterson MA, Skow-Grant E. Memory and Learning in Figure–Ground Perception. Psychology of Learning and Motivation. 2003. pp. 1–35. doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(03)01001-6
      18. De Luca Picione R, Valsiner J. Psychological Functions of Semiotic Borders in Sense-Making: Liminality of Narrative Processes. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2017;13: 532–547. doi:10.5964/ejop.v13i3.1136
      19. Glanville R. THE SELF AND THE OTHER: THE PURPOSE OF DISTINCTION.
      20. Rodolphe Durand And. Sameness, Otherness_ Enriching Organizational Change Theories with Philosophical Considerations on the Same and the Other.pdf. The Academy of Management Review. 2006. pp. 93–114. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20159187
      21. Gillette JM. Boundary Lines of Social Phenomena. American Journal of Sociology. 1925. pp. 585–593. doi:10.1086/213742
      22. Al HT et. Classification and quantitative judgement.pdf. 1963.
      23. Taboos S, Boundaries S. Author(s): Christie Davies. Am J Sociol. 1982;87: 1032–1063. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2778417
      24. Langer EJ, Bashner RS, Chanowitz B. Decreasing prejudice by increasing discrimination. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985;49: 113–120. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3160851
      25. Perdue CW, Dovidio JF, Gurtman MB, Tyler RB. Us and them: Social categorization and the process of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1990. pp. 475–486. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.3.475
      26. Leudar I, Marsland V. On membership categorization: “us”, “them” and “doing violence” in political discourse.
      27. Young J. On Insiders (Emic) and Outsiders (Etic): Views of Self, and Othering. Systemic Practice and Action Research. 2005;18: 151–162. doi:10.1007/s11213-005-4155-8
      28. Midgley G, Pinzón LA. Boundary critique and its implications for conflict prevention. Journal of the Operational Research Society. 2011. pp. 1543–1554. doi:10.1057/jors.2010.76
      29. Bentley SV, Greenaway KH, Haslam SA. Cognition in context: Social inclusion attenuates the psychological boundary between self and other. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2017;73: 42–49. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.008
      30. Simon HA. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1962. Available: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/citations;jsessionid=2E189A1F63607B2AB98D52F092B051ED?doi=10.1.1.110.961
      31. Anderson JR. The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review. 1991. pp. 409–429. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.98.3.409
      32. Pellegrino. Categorization in single neurons. 2001.
      33. Muehlhaus J, Heim S, Altenbach F, Chatterjee A, Habel U, Sass K. Deeper insights into semantic relations: an fMRI study of part-whole and functional associations. Brain Lang. 2014;129: 30–42. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2014.01.003
      34. Montoro PR, Luna D, Ortells JJ. Subliminal Gestalt grouping: evidence of perceptual grouping by proximity and similarity in absence of conscious perception. Conscious Cogn. 2014;25: 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.01.004
      35. Lewin K. Dynamic Theory of Personality.pdf. 1935.
      36. Moony. Perception, language, and the part-whole problem. 1951.
      37. Ackoff RL. Towards a System of Systems Concepts. Management Science. 1971. pp. 661–671. doi:10.1287/mnsc.17.11.661
      38. Solomon KO, Medin DL, Lynch E. Concepts do more than categorize. Trends Cogn Sci. 1999;3: 99–105. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10322461
      39. Tversky B, Hemenway K. Objects, parts, and categories. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1984;113: 169–197. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6242749
      40. Glushko RJ, Maglio PP, Matlock T, Barsalou LW. Categorization in the wild. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12: 129–135. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.007
      41. Liberman Z, Woodward AL, Kinzler KD. The Origins of Social Categorization. Trends Cogn Sci. 2017;21: 556–568. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.04.004
      42. Fisher M, Keil FC. The Binary Bias: A Systematic Distortion in the Integration of Information. Psychol Sci. 2018;29: 1846–1858. doi:10.1177/0956797618792256
      43. Wiener N. “Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine” (Book Review). 1951.
      44. Clement CA, Falmagne RJ. Logical reasoning, world knowledge, and mental imagery: interconnections in cognitive processes. Mem Cognit. 1986;14: 299–307. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3762383
      45. Gopnik A, Glymour C, Sobel DM, Schulz LE, Kushnir T, Danks D. A theory of causal learning in children: causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychol Rev. 2004;111: 3–32. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.3
      46. Pearl J. Causality. Cambridge University Press; 2009. Available: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=LLkhAwAAQBAJ
      47. Greene AJ. Making Connections. Scientific American Mind. 2010;21: 22–29. doi:10.2307/24943081
      48. Chersi F, Ferro M, Pezzulo G, Pirrelli V. Topological self-organization and prediction learning support both action and lexical chains in the brain. Top Cogn Sci. 2014;6: 476–491. doi:10.1111/tops.12094
      49. Ferry AL, Hespos SJ, Gentner D. Prelinguistic Relational Concepts: Investigating Analogical Processing in Infants. Child Dev. 2015;86: 1386–1405. doi:10.1111/cdev.12381
      50. Kominsky JF, Strickland B, Wertz AE, Elsner C, Wynn K, Keil FC. Categories and Constraints in Causal Perception. Psychol Sci. 2017;28: 1649–1662. doi:10.1177/0956797617719930
      51. Harris PL, German T, Mills P. Children’s use of counterfactual thinking in causal reasoning. Cognition. 1996;61: 233–259. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8990973
      52. Mascalzoni E, Regolin L, Vallortigara G, Simion F. The cradle of causal reasoning: newborns’ preference for physical causality. Dev Sci. 2013;16: 327–335. doi:10.1111/desc.12018
      53. Rolfs M, Dambacher M, Cavanagh P. Visual adaptation of the perception of causality. Curr Biol. 2013;23: 250–254. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.12.017
      54. Schulz LE, Gopnik A. Causal learning across domains. Dev Psychol. 2004;40: 162–176. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.162
      55.  Dhamala M. What is the nature of causality in the brain? - Inherently probabilistic: Comment on “Foundational perspectives on causality in large-scale brain networks” by M. Mannino and S.L. Bressler. Physics of life reviews. 2015. pp. 139–140. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2015.10.019
      56. Sanefuji W, Haryu E. Preschoolers’ Development of Theory of Mind: The Contribution of Understanding Psychological Causality in Stories. Front Psychol. 2018;9: 955. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00955
      57. Marvin. The Early Development of Conceptual Perspective Taking_ Distinguishing among Multiple Perspectives.pdf. Child Development. 1976. pp. 511–514. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1128810
      58. Premack D, Woodruff G. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav Brain Sci. 1978;1: 515–526. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00076512
      59.  Baron-Cohen. Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? 1985.
      60. Vallar G, Lobel E, Galati G, Berthoz A, Pizzamiglio L, Le Bihan D. A fronto-parietal system for computing the egocentric spatial frame of reference in humans. Exp Brain Res. 1999;124: 281–286.
      61. Perrine R, Jean D. How would you feel versus how do you think she would feel? A neuroimaging study of perspective-taking with social emotions. J Cogn Neurosci. 2004;16: 988. Available: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=782182411&Fmt=7&clientId=8424&RQT=309&VName=PQD
      62. Russell J, Alexis D, Clayton N. Episodic future thinking in 3- to 5-year-old children: the ability to think of what will be needed from a different point of view. Cognition. 2010;114: 56–71. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.013
      63. Rakoczy H, Wandt R, Thomas S, Nowak J, Kunzmann U. Theory of mind and wisdom: The development of different forms of perspective-taking in late adulthood. Br J Psychol. 2018;109: 6–24. doi:10.1111/bjop.12246
      64. Mafessoni F, Lachmann M. The complexity of understanding others as the evolutionary origin of empathy and emotional contagion. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 5794. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-41835-5
      65. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, New Series. 1981;211: 453–458. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1685855
      66. Schober. Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. 1993.
      67. Bateson. Perspective Taking: Imagining how aother would feels versus imagining how you would feel. 1997
      68. Knowles ML. Social rejection increases perspective taking. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2014;55: 126–132. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.06.008
      69. Cavallo A, Ansuini C, Capozzi F, Tversky B, Becchio C. When Far Becomes Near. Psychol Sci. 2017;28: 69–79. doi:10.1177/0956797616672464
      70. Neale MA, Bazerman MH. The Role of Perspective-Taking Ability in Negotiating under Different Forms of Arbitration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 1983. p. 378. doi:10.2307/2523017
      71. Galinsky AD, Moskowitz GB. Perspective-taking: decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;78: 708–724. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.708
      72.  Takaku S, Weiner B, Ohbuchi KI. A cross-cultural examination of the effects of apology and perspective taking on forgiveness. J Lang Soc Psychol. 2001;20: 144–166.
        73. Parker SK, Axtell CM. Seeing Another Viewpoint: Antecedents and Outcomes of Employee Perspective Taking. Academy of Management Journal. 2001. pp. 1085–1100. doi:10.5465/3069390
      73. Epley N, Keysar B, Van Boven L, Gilovich T. Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004;87: 327–339. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.327
      74.  Davis MH, Soderlund T, Cole J, Gadol E, Kute M, Myers M, et al. Cognitions associated with attempts to empathize: how do we imagine the perspective of another? Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2004;30: 1625–1635. doi:10.1177/0146167204271183
      75. Harwood. Conflicting Emotions: The connection between affective perspective taking and theory of mind. 2006.
      76. Tversky B, Hard BM. Embodied and disembodied cognition: spatial perspective-taking. Cognition. 2009;110: 124–129. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.008
      77. Wang CS, Tai K, Ku G, Galinsky AD, Urgesi C. Perspective-Taking Increases Willingness to Engage in Intergroup Contact. 2014. doi:10.1371/
      78. Bateson G. Form Substance and Difference. 1970.
      79. Bertalanffy. The history and status of general systems theory. 1972.
      80. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 1973. pp. 155–169. doi:10.1007/bf01405730
      81.  Marchal JH. On the Concept of a System. Philos Sci. 1975;42: 448–468. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/187223
      82. Goguen JA, Varela FJ. SYSTEMS AND DISTINCTIONS; DUALITY AND COMPLEMENT ARITY†. Int J Gen Syst. 1979;5: 31–43. doi:10.1080/03081077908960886
      83. Ivan M, Kondo K, Yang H, Kim W, Valiando 1. Jennifer, Ohh M, et al. HIFa Targeted for VHL-Mediated Destruction by Proline Hydroxylation: Implications for O Sensing. Science. 2001;292. Available: https://science-sciencemag-org.proxy.library.cornell.edu/content/sci/292/5516/464.full.pdf
      84. Mareschal D, Quinn PC. Categorization in infancy. Trends Cogn Sci. 2001;5: 443–450. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11707383
      85. Ashby FG, Ell SW, Waldron EM. Procedural learning in perceptual categorization. Mem Cognit. 2003;31: 1114–1125. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14704026
      86. Sloutsky VM. The role of similarity in the development of categorization. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003;7: 246–251. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00109-8
      87. Lewandowsky S, Roberts L, Yang L-X. Knowledge partitioning in categorization: boundary conditions. Mem Cognit. 2006;34: 1676–1688. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17489294
      88.  Lupyan G. The conceptual grouping effect: categories matter (and named categories matter more). Cognition. 2008;108: 566–577. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.009
      89. van Dijk J, Kerkhofs R, van Rooij I, Haselager P. Special Section: Can There Be Such a Thing as Embodied Embedded Cognitive Neuroscience? Theory Psychol. 2008;18: 297–316. doi:10.1177/0959354308089787
      90. Mahon BZ, Caramazza A. Concepts and categories: a cognitive neuropsychological perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60: 27–51. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163532
      91. Tarrant M, Calitri R, Weston D. Social identification structures the effects of perspective taking. Psychol Sci. 2012;23: 973–978. doi:10.1177/0956797612441221
      92.  Havy M, Waxman SR. Naming influences 9-month-olds’ identification of discrete categories along a perceptual continuum. Cognition. 2016;156: 41–51. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2016.07.011
      93. Boisseau RP, Vogel D, Dussutour A. Habituation in non-neural organisms: evidence from slime moulds. Proc Biol Sci. 2016;283. doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.0446
      94. Cabrera D, Cabrera L, Powers E. A Unifying Theory of Systems Thinking with Psychosocial Applications. Syst Res. 2015;32: 534–545. doi:10.1002/sres.2351
      95. Thagard P. Cognitive Sciences. Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences. doi:10.4135/9781452276052.n38