A shared cognitive map is power. Whoever controls its structure can influence how people think. Governance is not optional; it is central to the legitimacy of the system.
Key Risks
- Bias amplification: mapping rules can privilege certain perspectives.
- Steering: hidden weighting can push users toward preferred conclusions.
- Capture: institutions may shape the map to serve their interests.
Governance Principles
- Transparency: mapping rules are visible and auditable.
- Pluralism: multiple mappings can coexist to reflect different lenses.
- Participation: users can contribute to and challenge the map.
- Provenance: every change has a traceable history.
Distributed Stewardship
No single entity should own the map. Stewardship should be distributed across diverse contributors, with checks that prevent unilateral control.
This can include:
- Community review boards.
- Open-source mapping pipelines.
- Independent audits of bias and drift.
Accountability Mechanisms
- Logs of structural changes.
- Public reports on map updates.
- User-facing explanations of why concepts are placed where they are.
The Goal
A cognitive map should be a shared infrastructure for understanding, not a subtle instrument of control. Governance makes the difference.
When you can see how the map is made, you can trust the journey it offers.