The DOI matches its Crossref record.
How the Mind Works
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Interestingly, many of the “top down” frameworks boil down to assuming that the brain simply optimizes a single, given cost function for a single computational architecture.”
From Toward an integration of deep learning and neuroscience (2016) · cites this paper as Pinker, 1999
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead
Williamson, O. E. (2000) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.38.3.595 · Cited by 6,663
Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion.
Russell, J. A. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.1.145 · Cited by 6,113
Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 · Cited by 5,137
Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00003435 · Cited by 4,481
Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.90.4.293 · Cited by 3,991
Metadata
- Authors
- PINKER, S.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- PINKER, STEVEN
- ORCID
- PINKER, STEVEN
- Venue
- Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1999-06
- Volume
- 882
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 119-127
- ISSN
- 0077-8923 (ISSN-L)
- 1749-6632
- OpenAlex
- W2133735566
- Cited by
- 3,738
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 92 · 2018: 115 · 2017: 128 · 2016: 122 · 2015: 161 · 2014: 198 · 2013: 191 · 2012: 220
- FWCI
- 305.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- mind, cognition, cognitive processes, neuroscience of cognition
- MeSH terms
- Brain, Cognition, Humans, Mental Processes, Thinking, Vision, Ocular
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
