<p>What are the works/papers/results/theories any expert in cognitive science should know, even if they're outside his/her specific field of expertise?</p>

<p>One paper/theory per answer please, and state why do you find this work important to know (and ideally, not just because it has lots of citations, or because everyone teach it at Cognitive Science 101)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-16T10:11:11.103Z
I feel this is actually a good question, and possibly very valuable. If it were to be slightly reworded (What are the seminal papers in Cognitive Science?), it would not be excessively open ended. Certain papers and ideas have clearly left a large impact on the field. Naming these papers would transcend an individual opinion, because their importance is widely agreed upon. The importance of the paper could even be crudely measured by the number of citations, moving the answer further from opinion. The only threat are bad answers, such providing obscure or discredited papers.
Preece
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-09-01T18:03:30.053Z
@WhyDoYouThinkThatIsTrue the intent behind the original question was to find papers and works that I as a researcher in a specific subfield (perceptual learning, actually) should know *outside* of my specific topic of research, because they are so important, no one should call themselves a psychologist or a cognitive scientist without knowing them.
Ofri Raviv
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-25T08:09:19.000Z
Perhaps a better idea to agree first on what subjects should be covered.. I remember being told the University History department claimed they belong in Cog. Science... If there's some agreement somewhere else please point me..
Software Mechanic
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-25T10:04:50.630Z
We [haven't established guidelines on poll-type questions yet](http://meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/36/21), but either way I feel you should at least limit the scope of the question considerably. Cognitive Science is too broad of a field in my opinion for this topic to be constructive in any way.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-25T12:42:30.770Z
I really believe this should be set as CW (there's no definitive answer, or many replies might be seen as equally valid and knowledgeable), and it would be good if respondents could highlight things like field of study, why they think this is an important paper, are there rejoinders or critical issues, etc., IMO.
chl
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-25T16:33:52.797Z
Not constructive? Seriously? The answer to this question alone could be worth its own site!
Ofri Raviv
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-25T16:35:35.700Z
@StevenJeuris - About scope, its intensionally wide. Inside my fields of expertise (Perception and perceptual learning) I believe I know the important works. I was wondering what other people think I ought to know about *other* sub-fields of cognitive science.
Ofri Raviv
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-25T16:37:25.897Z
@OfriRaviv: Feel free to participate in the meta discussion I linked to in my comment.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-25T16:45:10.033Z
@OfriRaviv these questions are tricky, narrowing your scope can make it okay. The problem is there could be hundreds of answers to this question.  [This question](http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/74/must-read-user-interface-book) is a pretty acceptable example. Note there sin't much disagreement; Design of Everyday Things and Don't Make Me Think come to mind almost instantly for most professionals. Try to find a question you can ask with that sort of focused potential response.
Zelda
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-25T16:54:17.477Z
*The answer to this question alone could be worth its own site!* Which is exactly why it's not a constructive question. If it needs an entire site to be answered properly, it's too broad.
Josh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-25T17:38:37.000Z
... or an example from this very site: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/16/21
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-31T12:58:12.567Z
I don't exactly understand why this question was closed (although it SHOULD be made community wiki, although that might not be possible anymore). cstheory.SE (one of the few academic SEs that has maintained a very high level of academic participation and questions) has a question [just like this](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/1168/1037).
Artem Kaznatcheev
<cognitive-psychology><reference-request>
What are the "Must Know" papers of Cognitive Science?
Ofri Raviv
# What are the "Must Know" papers of Cognitive Science?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-01-25)

What are the works/papers/results/theories any expert in cognitive science should know, even if they're outside his/her specific field of expertise?

One paper/theory per answer please, and state why do you find this work important to know (and ideally, not just because it has lots of citations, or because everyone teach it at Cognitive Science 101)

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, reference-request

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Perhaps a better idea to agree first on what subjects should be covered.. I remember being told the University History department claimed they belong in Cog. Science... If there's some agreement somewhere else please point me..  
> **username_3**: We [haven't established guidelines on poll-type questions yet](http://meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/36/21), but either way I feel you should at least limit the scope of the question considerably. Cognitive Science is too broad of a field in my opinion for this topic to be constructive in any way.  
> **username_4**: I really believe this should be set as CW (there's no definitive answer, or many replies might be seen as equally valid and knowledgeable), and it would be good if respondents could highlight things like field of study, why they think this is an important paper, are there rejoinders or critical issues, etc., IMO.  
> **username_0**: Not constructive? Seriously? The answer to this question alone could be worth its own site!  
> **username_0**: @StevenJeuris - About scope, its intensionally wide. Inside my fields of expertise (Perception and perceptual learning) I believe I know the important works. I was wondering what other people think I ought to know about *other* sub-fields of cognitive science.  
> **username_3**: @OfriRaviv: Feel free to participate in the meta discussion I linked to in my comment.  
> **username_5**: @OfriRaviv these questions are tricky, narrowing your scope can make it okay. The problem is there could be hundreds of answers to this question.  [This question](http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/74/must-read-user-interface-book) is a pretty acceptable example. Note there sin't much disagreement; Design of Everyday Things and Don't Make Me Think come to mind almost instantly for most professionals. Try to find a question you can ask with that sort of focused potential response.  
> **username_6**: *The answer to this question alone could be worth its own site!* Which is exactly why it's not a constructive question. If it needs an entire site to be answered properly, it's too broad.  
> **username_3**: ... or an example from this very site: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/16/21  
> **username_7**: I don't exactly understand why this question was closed (although it SHOULD be made community wiki, although that might not be possible anymore). cstheory.SE (one of the few academic SEs that has maintained a very high level of academic participation and questions) has a question [just like this](http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/1168/1037).  
> **username_1**: I feel this is actually a good question, and possibly very valuable. If it were to be slightly reworded (What are the seminal papers in Cognitive Science?), it would not be excessively open ended. Certain papers and ideas have clearly left a large impact on the field. Naming these papers would transcend an individual opinion, because their importance is widely agreed upon. The importance of the paper could even be crudely measured by the number of citations, moving the answer further from opinion. The only threat are bad answers, such providing obscure or discredited papers.  
> **username_0**: @WhyDoYouThinkThatIsTrue the intent behind the original question was to find papers and works that I as a researcher in a specific subfield (perceptual learning, actually) should know *outside* of my specific topic of research, because they are so important, no one should call themselves a psychologist or a cognitive scientist without knowing them.  

---

## 0 answers

