Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:24:04.096Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An amicus for the defense: Relational reasoning magnifies the behavioral differences between humans and nonhumans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2008

Arthur B. Markman  and
C. Hunt Stilwell
Arthur B. Markman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712. [email protected]@mail.utexas.eduhttp://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/FACULTY/Markman/index.html
C. Hunt Stilwell
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712. [email protected]@mail.utexas.eduhttp://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/FACULTY/Markman/index.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Relational representation abilities are a crucial cognitive difference between human and nonhuman animals. We argue that relational reasoning and representation supports the development of culture that increases in complexity. Thus, these abilities are a force that magnifies the apparent difference in cognitive abilities between humans and nonhumans.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 142
Copyright
Copyright ©Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Christensen, B. T. & Schunn, C. D. (2007) The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and pre-inventive structure: The case of engineering design. Memory and Cognition 35(1):29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, K. (1997) How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. In: Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes, ed. Ward, T. B., Smit, S. M. & Vaid, J., pp. 461–93. American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D. & Gentner, D. (1989) The structure-mapping engine: Algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence 41(1):1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferretti, T. R., McRae, K. & Hatherell, A. (2001) Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory and Language 44:516–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (2003) Why we're so smart. In: Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, ed. Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S., pp. 195–235. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R., Markman, A. B., Levidow, B. B., Wolff, P. & Forbus, K. (1997) Conceptual change via analogical reasoning: A case study of Johannes Kepler. Journal of the Learning Sciences 6(1):3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. & Kurtz, K. J. (2005) Relational categories. In: Categorization inside and outside the laboratory: Essays in honor of Douglas L. Medin, ed. Ahn, W. K., Goldstone, R. L., Love, B. C., Markman, A. B. & Wolff, P., pp. 151–75. American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markman, A. B. (1997) Constraints on analogical inference. Cognitive Science 21(4):373–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markman, A. B. & Stilwell, C. H. (2001) Role-governed categories. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 13(4):329–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRae, K., Ferretti, T. R. & Amyote, L. (1997) Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes 12:137–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spellman, B. A. & Holyoak, K. J. (1996) Pragmatics in analogical mapping. Cognitive Psychology 31:307–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (1999) The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T. & Moll, H. (2005) Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28:675–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed