From the Attention to the Cognitive Process
Philosophers are holding to the view of developing cognitive reasoning from attention base their arguments on the fact that the attention given to someone determines the weight that the viewer gives it. Subsequently, this determines whether to treat himself/herself independently and capable of designing his/her rules and controlling the environment or identify with the environment and connecting with it by maintaining harmony with the established system which is often viewed as the larger group. Alternatively, the person can opt to isolate single objects from the environment and classifying them and seeing their connection to the set laws or applying the rule of experience and logic (Kuwabara & Smith, 2012).
Effects of Variations
This concept of reasoning is susceptible to variations since it is based on what society or an individual view to be the most significant part warranting a focus or special attention. Thus, two people, from the same culture, with different opinions of the same thing will conflict with who is correct or who is wrong. The system is therefore vulnerable to attacks since it lacks concrete rule but left to the whims of the observer.
Cultural Mechanism
This concept of reasoning from attention to cognitive reasoning relies heavily on the cultural background of the applicant. Thus, a culture that gives more emphasis to a particular element of life will be different with another that gives a lesser significance for the similar element while esteeming another element to be of more significance. Consequently, judgments are made differently. This concept can be viewed in the line of debate along ethical lines whereby a society considers something moral while another society considers the same act as immoral deserving punishment or two societies offering different levels of punishment for the same crime.
References
Kuwabara, M., & Smith, L. B. (2012). Cross-cultural differences in cognitive development: Attention to relations and objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(1), 20-35.