Re: RT list: "negative cognitive effect"?

Thank you Dan and thank you all (apologize for or not having the time for reflecting on Jose Luis and  Ernst's answers, but I'have to finish my thesis in three days) In Dan's answer I see the difficulty I was pointing at (perhaps it's only a terminological difficulty): the logical example of a false conclusion could also be interpreted as a null effect coupled with an effort, i.e. with an unfavourable ratio effect/effort. Could "negative" be interpreted in this sense? If yes, it is the relevance that is negative, not the effect. Dan says: "being misinformed is costly. It is a negative cognitive effect". Ok, but would not be the relevance (of being misinformed) negative? If being misinformed would not ask for some effort it could also be an indifferent (= null) effect. Physically speaking, for every mental effort there must always be an effect different from zero but not necessarily worth: if the ratio is unfavourable (too little effect and/or too great effort)the effect will be perceived as "negative", in the sense of “null and useless” compared to the mental effort. If it is correct, I would prefer to say that the opposite of a positive cognitive effect is a null cognitive effect. All my best Edoardo Il Lunedì 2 Dicembre 2013 11:47, Dan Sperber <dan.sperber@gmail.com> ha scritto: Bonjour y'all! Deirdre and I added 'positive' to cognitive effects in the definition of relevance for the following reason. Relevance is a cost-benefit notion. The cost is in term of effort (or expenditure of time and energy). The benefit is in terms of cognitive effects (improvement of one's knowledge state). But suppose you draw a mistaken inference, or -- looking at communication -- that you are misled by a communicator, either intentionally or unwittingly, then, to that extent, you are not getting from cognition or communication the cognitive benefit that makes cognition and communication advantageous. Instead of being informed, you are being misinformed. To the extent that being genuinely informed is beneficial and that, because of this, cognition is aimed at genuine information, being misinformed is costly. It is a negative cognitive effect. At that point we had the following alternative: to define relevance from the subjective point of view of the individual and
 to consider relevant whatever causes cognitive effects; or else define relevance from an objective point of view and consider only cognitive effects that are genuine improvement in the individual's state of knowledge. The subjective point of view is of course asymmetrically dependent on the objective one. Moreover it is the objective definition that is essential to the justification of the cognitive and communicative principles of relevance. Salut! Dan 2013/12/2 Edoardo Acotto <edacotto@yahoo.fr> Hallo, I have a question about cognitive effects. > > >Someone has already analyzed the conceptual implications of the "cognitive positive effect"? I mean: someone possibly tried to conceptualize a "negative effect" or there is agreement that the opposite of a positive effect is a "null effect"? >Note that, obviously, I'm speaking of effect, not of relevance, > >Thanks for your attention. > > >Edoardo Acotto > --  www.dan.sperber.fr  www.cognitionandculture.net
Received on Mon Dec 16 17:20:46 2013