user4840: I think there have been a lot of posts on BioSE recently that are really more appropriately about psychology rather than biology: things like "why do we dream" or "will we be able to read thoughts from brain activity" or "does playing music during sleep actually suppress rather than rouse the brain", and this one on neuroeconomics which is still unanswered (in my opinion, this one, too, should be in Cognitive Sciences SE, though that might just be because I learned about lateralization in a psych class.) All these questions I think have more to do with the cognitive functions of the brain. While this can be argued, and many hairs can be split, I think it's fair to say that those questions might be more rapidly, comprehensively, and authoritatively answered on Cognitive Sciences SE; I imagine people over there think about the brain a lot, whereas people here come from a lot of different backgrounds: ecology, molecular/cell biology, biochemistry, and neuroscience. Questions I still think are relevant to BioSE include things about the mechanisms of action potentials, neuroscience/developmental biology, neuronal imaging, neuroanatomy, synaptic transmission, etc. Thoughts?

user27148: I think that you get completely different answers in the two contexts. It's okay to gently suggest that CogSci questions could be asked at CogSci, but the vocabulary they use to answer questions at CogSci differs from the approach on Biology, much like the approaches of psychology and neuroscience differ in some cases. There is definitely some overlap, and there are definitely groups in one field or the other that operate as much in the opposite sphere, but it just isn't the same approach.
To make an analogy, it's a bit like asking a question about an interpersonal interaction to a lawyer or to a personal counselor: you will get completely different answers from both on some topics, and more similar answers on other topics, but they are still distinct.
To summarize: I suggest we continue to let people know when their question might be better received at CogSci, but for questions that are on-topic for biology we should try our best to answer them here.

user25568: I think there are 3 advantage of this. 

Better ease at filtering (without going to any conflict with BioSE), it will help to get all cogsci questions at one place. 
I agree, each discipline(subjects or fields), institutes, laboratories and localities have some sort of tunnel-vision of their own (which may develop from various historical/ practical reasons). But I believe it is good to have holes in these tunnels. If cog-sci people sees what are the biologists'/ neurobiologists' way of thinking, and similarly biology people get familiar with how cognitive scientists deal it; it might light-up each-other's dark areas. 
Cogsci community have a lower frequency of getting view and answer to a question, because lesser people visits there. But a higher redirect rate could send many visitors there. 

However initially (seemingly 1 year or 2) there would remain the risk of getting not enough visits/ attempts/ thoughts, so BioSE would need to display the redirect links for more time in BioSE questions list, within this initial period.
The proposed process will also require some discussion at CogSci meta about permitting more biology-oriented and chemistry-oriented views on a cogsci question.  

user9943: If they are on-topic here, but are better suited for CogSci, they should not be closed here because of it. Only when they are off-topic here they should be closed [and migrated if viable]. 
In general, questions should not be rejected when they are on-topic on either site. But as said elsewhere by others, it is perfectly reasonable to mention the existence of the CogSci stack to folks by placing a comment. We are in need of questions over at CogSci, so we certainly appreciate it over there to get questions from Bio. 

4840: <p>I think there have been a lot of posts on BioSE recently that are really more appropriately about psychology rather than biology: things like "<a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14998/why-do-we-dream">why do we dream</a>" or "<a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/15133/will-we-ever-be-able-to-read-the-thoughts-from-brain-activity">will we be able to read thoughts from brain activity</a>" or "<a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/15000/does-playing-music-during-sleep-actually-suppress-rather-than-rouse-the-brain">does playing music during sleep actually suppress rather than rouse the brain</a>", and this one on <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14968/does-neuroeconomics-study-the-brain-or-study-economics">neuroeconomics</a> which is still unanswered (in my opinion, <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/15327/is-there-a-scientific-name-for-the-field-of-study-focusing-on-the-hemispheres-of">this one</a>, too, should be in Cognitive Sciences SE, though that might just be because I learned about lateralization in a psych class.) All these questions I think have more to do with the cognitive functions of the brain. While this can be argued, and many hairs can be split, I think it's fair to say that those questions might be more rapidly, comprehensively, and authoritatively answered on Cognitive Sciences SE; I imagine people over there think about the brain a lot, whereas people here come from a lot of different backgrounds: ecology, molecular/cell biology, biochemistry, and neuroscience. Questions I still think are relevant to BioSE include things about the mechanisms of action potentials, neuroscience/developmental biology, neuronal imaging, neuroanatomy, synaptic transmission, etc. Thoughts?</p>
 27148: <p>I think that you get completely different answers in the two contexts. It's okay to gently suggest that CogSci questions could be asked at CogSci, but the vocabulary they use to answer questions at CogSci differs from the approach on Biology, much like the approaches of psychology and neuroscience differ in some cases. There is definitely some overlap, and there are definitely groups in one field or the other that operate as much in the opposite sphere, but it just isn't the same approach.</p>

<p>To make an analogy, it's a bit like asking a question about an interpersonal interaction to a lawyer or to a personal counselor: you will get completely different answers from both on some topics, and more similar answers on other topics, but they are still distinct.</p>

<p>To summarize: I suggest we continue to let people know when their question might be better received at CogSci, but for questions that are on-topic for biology we should try our best to answer them here.</p>
 25568: <p>I think there are 3 advantage of this. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>Better ease at filtering (without going to any conflict with BioSE), it will help to get all cogsci questions at one place. </p></li>
<li><p>I agree, each discipline(subjects or fields), institutes, laboratories and localities have some sort of tunnel-vision of their own (which may develop from various historical/ practical reasons). But I believe it is good to have holes in these tunnels. If cog-sci people sees what are the biologists'/ neurobiologists' way of thinking, and similarly biology people get familiar with how cognitive scientists deal it; it might light-up each-other's dark areas. </p></li>
<li><p>Cogsci community have a lower frequency of getting view and answer to a question, because lesser people visits there. But a higher redirect rate could send many visitors there. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>However initially (seemingly 1 year or 2) there would remain the risk of getting not enough visits/ attempts/ thoughts, so BioSE would need to display the redirect links for more time in BioSE questions list, within this initial period.</p>

<p>The proposed process will also require some discussion at CogSci meta about permitting more biology-oriented and chemistry-oriented views on a cogsci question.  </p>
 9943: <p>If they are on-topic here, but are better suited for CogSci, they should not be closed here because of it. Only when they are off-topic here they should be closed [and migrated if viable]. </p>

<p><strong>In general, questions should <em>not</em> be rejected when they are on-topic on either site</strong>. But as said elsewhere by others, it is perfectly reasonable to mention the existence of the CogSci stack to folks by placing a comment. We are in need of questions over at CogSci, so we certainly appreciate it over there to get questions from Bio. </p>
