Hypocognition
{{Short description|Inability to communicate due to no words for a concept}}
Hypocognition, in cognitive linguistics, means missing and being unable to communicate cognitive and linguistic representations because there are no words for particular concepts.{{cite journal |last=Hollan |first=Douglas |title=Constructivist Models of Mind, Contemporary Psychoanalysis, and the Development of Culture Theory |journal=American Anthropologist |volume=102 |issue=3 |pages=538–550, See p. 541 |year=2000 |doi=10.1525/aa.2000.102.3.538 }}
Origins
The word hypocognition (and its opposite, hypercognition) was coined by American psychiatrist and anthropologist Robert Levy in his 1973 book Tahitians: Mind and Experience in the Society Islands. After 26 months of studying them, Levy described Tahitians as having no words to describe sorrow or guilt, resulting in people who had suffered personal losses describing themselves as feeling sick or strange instead of sad.{{cite book|last=Levy|first=Robert I.|title=Tahitians: mind and experience in the Society Islands|year=1975|publisher=University of Chicago Press|location=Chicago|isbn=978-0226476070|page=324|edition=Pbk. }}{{cite book |editor-first=Richard A. |editor-last=Shweder |title=Culture theory: essays on mind, self, and emotion |year=1995 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0521318310 |pages=227–8}} Levy believed the Tahitians' lack of frames for thinking about and expressing grief contributed to their high suicide rate.{{cite book|last=Ottenheimer|first=Harriet Joseph|title=The anthropology of language: an introduction to linguistic anthropology|year=2009|publisher=Wadsworth|location=Belmont, CA|isbn=978-0495508847|page=41|edition=2nd}} He believed that a balance between hypercognition and hypocognition was culturally most desirable.{{cite book|last=Ferrara|first=Nadia|title=Emotional expression among Cree Indians: the role of pictorial representations in the assessment of psychological mindedness|year=1998|publisher=Jessica Kingsley|location=London|isbn=978-1853026560|page=38}}
Usage
Hypocognition is a phrase commonly used in linguistics. In 2004 George Lakoff used it to describe political progressives in the United States, saying that relative to conservatives they suffer from "massive hypocognition," which he described as the lack of having a progressive philosophy framed around the progressive core values of empathy and responsibility such as "effective government" versus "less government" or "broader prosperity" versus "free markets."{{cite book|last=Lakoff|first=George|title=Don't think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate: the essential guide for progressives|year=2004|publisher=Chelsea Green|location=White River Junction VT|isbn=978-1931498715|page=[https://archive.org/details/dontthinkofeleph00lako/page/24 24]|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/dontthinkofeleph00lako/page/24}}
Effects
Hypocognition has been blamed for preventing the practical application of evidence-based medicine in areas where frames (contextual and presentational influences on perceptions of reality) obscure facts.{{Cite journal
| last1 = Mariotto | first1 = A.
| title = Hypocognition and evidence-based medicine
| doi = 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2009.02086.x
| journal = Internal Medicine Journal
| volume = 40
| issue = 1
| pages = 80–82
| year = 2010
| pmid = 20561370
| pmc =
| s2cid = 24519238
}} More generally, experts often overuse their own expertise: e.g. cardiologist diagnose a heart problem when the actual problem is something else.{{cite news |last1=Wu |first1=Kaidi |last2=Dunning |first2=David |title=Unknown Unknowns: The Problem of Hypocognition |url=https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/unknown-unknowns-the-problem-of-hypocognition/ |accessdate=12 August 2018 |work=Scientific American |date=9 August 2018}}{{cite journal |last1=Wu |first1=Kaidi |last2=Dunning |first2=David |date=2018 |title=Hypocognition: Making sense of the landscape beyond one's conceptual reach. |journal=Review of General Psychology |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=22–25 |doi=10.1037/gpr0000126 |doi-access=}}