Beliefs, factual and symbolic

[rsmarken]

@bnhpct

@rsmarken

the nature of the feedback function depends not only on the nature of the environment in which behavior occurs; it also depends on the nature of the perceptual variable that is being controlled – the CV.

Yes. And when the actions and intentions of others are constituent inputs of the controlled perception they need to be included in the model of the environment.

Of course. And there are good examples of that in Bill’s CROWD demo, Reynolds flocking model and my phonemic drift model. But that’s not really relevant to my point, which is that you can’t learn anything about the nature of a feedback function by just looking at the environmental components of that function (components that, as you note, can include other control systems, such as people). You have to include a description of the CV, which is a perception (a function of environmental variables). That’s what the “What is Size” demo illustrates.

@bnhpct

The phrase “actions and intentions of others” refers particularly to control by others of environmental variables which the subject perceives and which are salient for the subject’s control. And it goes without saying (but to forestall cavil I probably have to say) that for any of the modeled participants these are the subject’s perceptions of the actions and intentions of others.

Yes, of course. But you don’t always have to include the subject’s perceptions of both the actions and intentions of others when dealing with collective control. In models of conflict we don’t need to include the subjects’ perceptions of the others’ intentions or actions; in models of flocking and CROWD behavior we only need to include the subjects’ perceptions of the actions of others.

@bnhpct

@rsmarken

The main shortcoming I see in your approach to understanding social behavior is that you don’t seem to try to identify the perceptual variables – CVs – around which any particular behavior is organized.

I enumerated a variety of purposes a person might have for initiating a handshake, and purposes a person might have for reciprocating or refusing to participate in enacting the social ritual of a handshake.

This is fine for an informal analysis of a behavior. But for research purposes, identifying controlled variables must involve presenting evidence that your description of the CV is correct. If you are not doing this in a lab, you have to present evidence that the variable you describe is being maintained in a reference state, protected from naturally occurring disturbances.

@bnhpct

@rsmarken

My guess is that Lee was controlling for being perceived as having agreed to surrender and Grant was controlling for being perceived as having accepted Lee’s surrender.

Do you consider that an adequate specification of the CV?

Yes, for an informal analysis of the situation it is just fine.

@bnhpct

@rsmarken

The man who refused was probably controlling for being perceived as not having agreed to whatever was proposed by the man offering his hand.

You don’t seem to try very hard to identify the perceptual variables – CVs – around which this behavior is organized.

There’s not much more I can do given the evidence I have – one picture and some description of the event. As I said above, if my aim were to more accurately identify the variables being controlled in this situation I would have to get a lot more information. For example, I would seek out other instances where this particular general shook hands (or didn’t) with other people (other possible disturbances to the “handshake as agreement” variable) to see if he always shook hands when there was agreement and avoided shaking when there wasn’t. And even if I found evidence of fairly consistent resistance to disturbances to this variable, I would test different hypotheses about the variable being controlled, such as “handshake to show respect unless the other person is not Caucasian”.

@bnhpct

The main problem is methodological. Without valid and agreed method there can be no valid and agreed data.

I agree that methodology is a big problem for those who don’t want to do research. Fortunately, it is not a problem for those of us who want to do research on purpose and know how to do it.