Cecilia Heyes labels language a 'cognitive gadget' for precise social learning
Why does the way we talk matter for how we think? Researchers have long noted that language sharpens our mental toolkit, yet the relationship isn’t one‑way. Our brains get a lift from words, but the words themselves aren’t the architects of cognition.
That tension sits at the heart of a debate sparked by recent work in social learning. While the idea that language merely reflects thought feels intuitive, some scholars argue it does more than echo existing capacities. The claim is that language functions as a specialized mechanism—something built to transmit knowledge with a speed and accuracy that other channels can’t match.
If that’s true, the ordinary act of conversation becomes a high‑precision instrument for cultural transmission. The argument gains weight from a recent description by cognitive scientist Cecilia Heyes, who frames language as a “cognitive gadget” that “enables humans to learn from others with extraordinary efficiency, fidelity, and precision.”
Understood this way, language is what the cognitive scientist Cecilia Heyes calls a "cognitive gadget" that "enables humans to learn from others with extraordinary efficiency, fidelity, and precision." Our cognition improves because of language -- but it's not created or defined by it. Take away our ability to speak, and we can still think, reason, form beliefs, fall in love, and move about the world; our range of what we can experience and think about remains vast. But take away language from a large language model, and you are left with literally nothing at all.
An AI enthusiast might argue that human-level intelligence doesn't need to necessarily function in the same way as human cognition. AI models have surpassed human performance in activities like chess using processes that differ from what we do, so perhaps they could become superintelligent through some unique method based on drawing correlations from training data. But there's no obvious reason to think we can get to general intelligence -- not improving narrowly defined tasks --through text-based training.
After all, humans possess all sorts of knowledge that is not easily encapsulated in linguistic data -- and if you doubt this, think about how you know how to ride a bike. In fact, within the AI research community there is growing awareness that LLMs are, in and of themselves, insufficient models of human intelligence.
Language, according to Cecilia Heyes, is a “cognitive gadget” that lets us learn from others with extraordinary efficiency, fidelity and precision. Yet she notes that cognition improves because of language, not the other way around. Meanwhile, tech leaders are making bold predictions.
Mark Zuckerberg says developing superintelligence is now in sight, heralding creations beyond current imagination. Dario Amodei suggests powerful AI could arrive as soon as 2026, potentially outsmarting Nobel laureates across most fields and even extending human lifespans or achieving “escape velocity” from death. Sam Altman adds that the industry is now confident it knows how to build AGI.
These statements contrast sharply with Heyes’ more measured view of language’s role. It’s uncertain whether the timelines and capabilities described will materialise; the claims lack independent verification. The juxtaposition highlights a gap between optimistic forecasts and the more cautious scientific framing of human cognition.
As the debate continues, readers are left to weigh enthusiasm against the limited evidence presented.
Further Reading
- How culture works with evolution to produce human cognition - Aeon
- A Commentary on “Rethinking Norm Psychology” by Cecilia Heyes - National Institutes of Health (PMC)
- Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 140 (2022) 104772: The neurobiology of language - Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
- Testing cognitive gadgets - Heyes - 2019 - Wiley
- Cognitive Gadgets: The Cultural Evolution of Thinking - University of Chicago Journals
More in Research & Benchmarks
DOE orders cloud, labs, and network integration for AI Genesis mission in 90 days
The Department of Energy is moving fast to stitch together the computing muscle needed for its new...
CrowdStrike's Stein finds DeepSeek‑R1 adds 50% more bugs on Chinese prompts
Stefan Stein, who runs CrowdStrike’s Counter Adversary Operations, set up a massive test of...
Microsoft's Fara-7B AI agent, rival to GPT‑4o, runs on PC, logs 145k tasks
Microsoft has rolled out Fara‑7B, a new computer‑use AI that runs locally on a Windows PC and...
Authors retract brain-mapping paper after reviewers flag fabricated citations
When a paper claims to decode neural signals, the stakes are high. Researchers announced a new...
CrewAI Introduces Function-Based Guardrails for Rule‑Based Output Constraints
CrewAI’s latest release adds a new layer of control for language‑model agents. The company calls...
Common Questions Answered
What does Cecilia Heyes mean by calling language a "cognitive gadget"?
She argues that language is a tool that enhances human social learning, allowing us to acquire knowledge from others with extraordinary efficiency, fidelity, and precision, while cognition itself remains independent of language.
According to the article, how does language affect human cognition?
The article states that language improves our cognitive abilities by providing a medium for precise social learning, but it does not create or define cognition; even without speech, we can still think, reason, and experience a wide range of mental states.
What predictions about future AI are mentioned alongside Heyes' theory?
The piece cites Mark Zuckerberg claiming that superintelligence development is now within reach, and Dario Amodei forecasting that powerful AI could emerge as early as 2026, potentially surpassing the intellect of Nobel laureates.
How does the concept of a "cognitive gadget" relate to social learning efficiency?
By labeling language a cognitive gadget, Heyes highlights that language enables humans to learn from others with extraordinary efficiency, fidelity, and precision, making social transmission of knowledge faster and more accurate than non‑linguistic mechanisms.