Narrow and Broad Faculties in System 1 and System 2

Toward Consensus in the Debate on Modularity

Bibliographic Data

ID12822973
AuthorsNorbert Francis (0000-0002-7941-0883, Northern Arizona University, corresponding author)
Year2021
Volume21
Issue3-4
Pages261-279
Publication date2021-10-14
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Cognition and Culture (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1567-7095 • E-ISSN: 1568-5373
PublisherBrill (PUBLISHER • NL)
DOI10.1163/15685373-12340112
OpenAlexW3205073522
LanguageEN
References cited14

Research on learning, the structure of attained knowledge, and the use of this competence in performance has repeatedly returned to longstanding proposals about how to better understand proficient use of knowledge and how humans acquire it. The following article takes up an exchange between Chiappe & Gardner (2011) and Barrett & Kurzban (2012) on the concept of modularity, one of these proposals. Despite the disagreements expressed, a careful reading of the contributions shows that they also left us with lines of discussion that will eventually sort out the relevant hypotheses and integrate findings for future research. These lines of work will contribute to a clearer understanding of an updated version of the modularity hypothesis that is also compatible with evolutionary science perspectives on learning. How might the categories of domain-specific and domain-general correspond to the distinction between competence and performance and to that of narrow faculty and broad faculty

Biology · Cognitive science · Competence (human resources · Epistemology · Evolutionary biology · Metaphysics · Modularity (biology · Philosophy of language · Philosophy of mind · Philosophy of science · sort · Chaos, Complexity, and Education · Cognitive Science and Education Research · Computer Science · Learning Styles and Cognitive Differences · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOI