Journal of Cognition and Culture 8 (1-2):1-22 (2008)

Authors
Eric Margolis
University of British Columbia
Stephen Laurence
University of Sheffield
Abstract
How do people decide what category an artifact belongs to? Previous studies have suggested that adults and, to some degree, children, categorize artifacts in accordance with the design stance, a categorization system which privileges the designer’s original intent in making categorization judgments. However, these studies have all been conducted in Western, technologically advanced societies, where artifacts are mass produced. In this study, we examined intuitions about artifact categorization among the Shuar, a hunter-horticulturalist society in the Amazon region of Ecuador. We used a forced-choice method similar to previous studies, but unlike these studies, our scenarios involved artifacts that would be familiar to the Shuar. We also incorporated a community condition to examine the possible effect of community consensus on how artifacts are categorized. The same scenarios were presented to university student participants in the UK. Across populations and conditions, participants tended to categorize artifacts in terms of a creator’s intent as opposed to a differing current use. This lends support to the view that the design stance may be a universal feature of human cognition. However, we conclude with some thoughts on the limitations of the present method for studying artifact concepts.
Keywords artifacts  intention  cross-cultural cognition  design stance  concepts  artifact concepts
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1163/156770908x289189
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 68,916
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Intentional Systems.Daniel C. Dennett - 1971 - Journal of Philosophy 68 (February):87-106.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Can Artificial Intelligence Make Art?Elzė Sigutė Mikalonytė & Markus Kneer - 2022 - ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interactions.
Counting Experiments.Jonathan Livengood - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (1):175-195.
Category Cognition and Dennett’s Design Stance.Hector MacIntyre - 2013 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 4 (3):483-495.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Co-Designing Social Systems by Designing Technical Artifacts.Ulrich Krohs - 2008 - In Pieter E. Vermaas, Peter Kroes, Andrew Light & Steven A. Moore (eds.), Philosophy and Design: From Engineering to Architecture. Springer.
Evil Intent and Design Responsibility.Bart Kemper - 2004 - Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (2):303-309.
Post-Phenomenology and Cross-Cultural Technology Transfer.Setargew Kenaw Fantaw - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 48:43-48.
Reading Mother Nature's Mind.Ruth G. Millikan - 2000 - In Don Ross, Andrew Brook & David L. Thompson (eds.), Dennett's Philosophy: A Comprehensive Assessment. MIT Press.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-08-01

Total views
14 ( #728,270 of 2,497,797 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #428,370 of 2,497,797 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes