The effort-reward mismatch: Cognitive friction and the conditions of possibility

Abstract

Frictionless, dematerialised environments (FDEs) are producing a paradox: a rise in cognitive exhaustion and somatic discomfort even as information environments become objectively more efficient. This editorial argues the progressive removal of material, bodily, and social resistance from knowledge environments does not expand cognitive possibility; it forecloses the conditions under which understanding has historically been assembled. What distinguishes the current moment is not merely the pace of change but the nature of the niche: for the first time, the dominant cognitive environment is genuinely immaterial and acquiescent, aligned with the Cartesian fantasy of mind liberated from body rather than with the embodied, situated reality of human cognition. It introduces the concept of the cognitive uncanny valley to account for the somatic discomfort that accompanies AI-generated knowledge. The editorial concludes with a call not for greater cognitive efficiency but for its opposite: the deliberate preservation of inefficiency, impasse, and not-knowing.

Keywords

embodied cognition cognitive niche metaplasticity cognitive uncanny valley friction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

M. M.

Crow Nicole

Mayberry

Mitchell

(2025). AI can transform the classroom just like the calculator. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-can-transform-the-classroom-just-like-the-calculator/

Arfini

(2019). Ignorant cognition: A philosophical investigation of the cognitive features of not-knowing (Vol. 46). Springer International Publishing.

Arfini

(2023). Serendipity and ignorance studies. In Copeland

S. M.

Ross

Sand

(Eds.), Serendipity science (pp. 125–143). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33529-7_7

Bawden

Robinson

(2009). The dark side of information: Overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551508095781

Bedard

Kropp

Hsu

Karaman

O. T.

Hawes

Rosen Kellerman

(2026, March 5). When using AI leads to ‘brain fry’. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2026/03/when-using-ai-leads-to-brain-fry

Beghetto

R. A.

(2023). A new horizon for possibility thinking: A conceptual case study of Human × AI collaboration. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(3), 324–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699231160136

Bellisari

(2008). Evolutionary origins of obesity. Obesity Reviews, 9(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00392.x

Chemero

(2011). Radical embodied cognitive science. MIT Press.

Chirayath

Premamalini

Joseph

(2025). Cognitive offloading or cognitive overload? How AI alters the mental architecture of coping. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1699320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1699320

10.

Clark

(2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford University Press.

11.

Clark

Chalmers

(1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7

12.

Copeland

S. M.

(2019). On serendipity in science: Discovery at the intersection of chance and wisdom. Synthese, 196, 2385–2406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1544-3

13.

De Jaegher

. (2019). Loving and knowing: Reflections for an engaged epistemology. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 19, 847–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-019-09634-5

14.

de Saint Laurent

. (2024). The possibility paradox: How technology both expands and contracts possibilities. Possibility Studies & Society, 2(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699241232742

15.

Erdelez

Makri

(2020). Information encountering re-encountered: A conceptual re-examination of serendipity in the context of information acquisition. Journal of Documentation, 76(3), 731–751. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-08-2019-0151

16.

Fuchs

(2017). Ecology of the Brain: The phenomenology and biology of the embodied mind (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199646883.001.0001

17.

Gallagher

(2023). Embodied and enactive approaches to cognition (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009209793

18.

Gerlich

(2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006

19.

Glăveanu

V. P.

(2020). A sociocultural theory of creativity: Bridging the social, the material, and the psychological. Review of General Psychology, 24(4), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020961763

20.

Glăveanu

V. P.

(2023). Possibility studies: A manifesto. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1–2), 275386992211275. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699221127580

21.

Gluckman

P. D.

(with Hanson, M. A.). (2006). Mismatch: Why our world no longer fits our bodies. Oxford University Press.

22.

Goldin-Meadow

(2017). Using our hands to change our minds. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 8(1–2), Article e1368. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1368

23.

Gong

Yang

(2024). Google effects on memory: A meta-analytical review of the media effects of intensive Internet search behavior. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, Article 1332030. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1332030

24.

Gruber

M. J.

Gelman

B. D.

Ranganath

(2014). States of curiosity modulate hippocampus-dependent learning via the dopaminergic circuit. Neuron, 84(2), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060

25.

Hao

Seetharaman

(2023, July 24). Cleaning up ChatGPT takes heavy toll on human workers. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/chatgpt-openai-content-abusive-sexually-explicit-harassment-kenya-workers-on-human-workers-cf191483

26.

Harris

D. X.

(2023). Non-binary possibilities of creative agency. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1–2), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699231166485

27.

Hołyst

J. A.

Mayr

Thelwall

Frommholz

Havlin

Sela

Kenett

Y. N.

Helic

Rehar

Maček

S. R.

Kazienko

Kajdanowicz

Biecek

Szymanski

B. K.

Sienkiewicz

(2024). Protect our environment from information overload. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(3), 402–403. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01833-8

28.

Kirsh

(1995). The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence, 73(1–2), 31–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(94)00017-U

29.

Kosmyna

Hauptmann

Yuan

Y. T.

Situ

Liao

X.-H.

Beresnitzky

A. V.

Braunstein

Maes

(2025). Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing task (Version 2). ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2506.08872

30.

Lakoff

Johnson

(2010). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Basic Books.

31.

Lee

H.-P. (Hank)

Sarkar

Tankelevitch

Drosos

Rintel

Banks

Wilson

(2025). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–22). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713778

32.

N. P.

Van Vugt

Colarelli

S. M.

(2018). The evolutionary mismatch hypothesis: Implications for psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417731378

33.

Loewenstein

(1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75

34.

Malafouris

(2008). At the potter’s wheel: An argument for material agency. In Knappett

Malafouris

(Eds.), Material agency (pp. 19–36). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74711-8_2

35.

Malafouris

(2013). How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement. MIT Press.

36.

Malafouris

(2015). Metaplasticity and the primacy of material engagement. Time and Mind, 8(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/1751696X.2015.1111564

37.

Mori

(1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33–35.

38.

Mori

MacDorman

Kageki

(2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811

39.

Newen

Gallagher

De Bruin

(2018). 4E cognition: Historical roots, key concepts, and central Issues. In Newen

Gallagher

De Bruin

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition (pp. 2–16). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.013.1

40.

Pirolli

Card

(1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106(4), 643–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.643

41.

Perrigo

. (2023, January 18). OpenAI used Kenyan workers on less than $2 per hour: Exclusive. TIME. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/

42.

Pye

(1968). The nature and art of workmanship (Revised ed.). Herbert Press.

43.

Rosati

A. G.

(2017). Foraging cognition: Reviving the ecological intelligence hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(9), 691–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.011

44.

Ross

(2022). Heteroscalar serendipity and the importance of accidents. In Ross

Copeland

(Eds.), The art of serendipity (pp. 75–99). Palgrave MacMillan.

45.

Ross

(2023a). Embracing difference and cultivating hope: The transformative potential of possibility studies. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1), 243–259.

46.

Ross

(2023b). The possibilities of disruption: Serendipity, accidents and impasse driven search. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(4) 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699231173625

47.

Ross

(2024). Accidental thinking: A model of serendipity’s cognitive processes. Review of General Psychology, 28(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680241254759

48.

Ross

Glaveanu

V. P.

Chemero

(2024). The illusion of freedom: Towards an embedded notion of constraints. In Tromp

Sternberg

R. J.

Ambrose

(Eds.), Constraints in creativity (pp. 166–181). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004707238

49.

Ross

Groves

(2023). Let’s just see what happens: A qualitative case study of risk and uncertainty in the creative process. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 57(2), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.578

50.

Sarkar

(2025, September). How to stop AI from killing your critical thinking. TEDAI Vienna. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/tedai-2025-artificial-intelligence-as-a-tool-for-thought/

51.

Seifert

C. M.

(2024). How impasse leads to insight: The prepared mind perspective. In Salvi

Wiley

Smith

S. M.

(Eds.), The emergence of insight (1st ed., pp. 84–112). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009244244.005

52.

Seifert

C. M.

Meyer

D. E.

Davidson

Patalano

A. L.

Yaniv

(1994). Demystification of cognitive insight: Opportunistic assimilation and the prepared-mind hypothesis. In Sternberg

R. J.

Davidson

(Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 65–124). MIT Press.

53.

Shalu Verma

Dev

Bhardwaj

A. B.

Kumar

. (2026). The cognitive cost of AI: How AI anxiety and attitudes influence decision fatigue in daily technology use. Annals of Neurosciences, 33(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/09727531251359872

54.

Stadler

Bannert

Sailer

(2024). Cognitive ease at a cost: LLMs reduce mental effort but compromise depth in student scientific inquiry. Computers in Human Behavior, 160, Article 108386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108386

55.

Sterelny

(2012). The evolved apprentice: How evolution made humans unique. The MIT Press.

56.

Sweller

(1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

57.

Tomasello

(1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press.

58.

Vallée-Tourangeau

(2013). Interactivity, efficiency, and individual differences in mental arithmetic. Experimental Psychology, 60, 302–311. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000200

59.

Vallée-Tourangeau

(2025). Systemic creative problem-solving: On the poverty of ideas and the generative power of prototyping. Systems, 13(3), Article 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13030150

60.

Videla

Penny

Ross

(2025). ‘If you can’t dance your program, you can’t write it’: Challenges and implications for AI in education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 3759257. https://doi.org/10.1145/3759257

61.

Voinea

Mann

S. P.

Savulescu

Earp

B. D.

(2026). The calculator analogy: Epistemic virtues for using LLMs. Technology in Society, 85, Article 103198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.103198

62.

Wilson

R. A.

(2001). Boundaries of the mind: The individual in the fragile sciences. Cambridge University Press.

63.

Yaqub

(2018). Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 47, 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.007