No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Shared intentionality and the representation of groups; or, how to build a socially adept robot
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 July 2022
Abstract
Pietraszewski provides a compelling case that representations of certain interaction-types are the “cognitive primitives” that allow all tokens of group-in-conflict to be represented within the mind. Here, I argue that the folk concept GROUP encodes shared intentions and goals as more central than these interaction-types, and that providing a computational theory of social groups will be more difficult than Pietraszewski envisages.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Ahn, W., Kim, N. S., Lassaline, M. E., & Dennis, M. J. (2000). Causal status as a determinant of feature centrality. Cognitive Psychology, 41(4), 361–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bratman, M. (1999). Faces of intention: Selected essays on intention and agency, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (2007). Baboon metaphysics: The evolution of a social mind. The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ip, G. W. M., Chiu, C. Y., & Wan, C. (2006). Birds of a feather and birds flocking together: Physical versus behavioral cues may lead to trait- versus goal-based group perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 368–381.Google ScholarPubMed
Lakens, D., & Stel, M. (2011). If they move in sync, they must feel in sync: Movement synchrony leads to attributions of rapport and entitativity. Social Cognition, 29, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClung, J., Placì, S., Bangerter, A., Clément, F., & Bshary, R. (2017). The language of cooperation: Shared intentionality drives variation in helping as a function of group membership. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284.Google ScholarPubMed
Phillips, B. (2021a). The roots of racial categorization. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00525-w.Google Scholar
Phillips, B. (2021b). Entitativity and implicit measures of social cognition. Mind & Language. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloman, S. A., Love, B. C., & Ahn, W.-K. (1998). Feature centrality and conceptual coherence. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 189–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ting, F., He, Z., & Baillargeon, R. (2019). Toddlers and infants expect individuals to refrain from helping an ingroup victim's aggressor. PNAS, 116(13), 6025–6034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675–691. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, S., & Gos, C. (2019). Perceiving social cohesion: Movement synchrony and task demands both matter. Perception, 48(4), 316–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Target article
Toward a computational theory of social groups: A finite set of cognitive primitives for representing any and all social groups in the context of conflict
Related commentaries (29)
A neuroscientific perspective on the computational theory of social groups
Advantages and limitations of representing groups in terms of recursive utilities
Are we there yet? Every computational theory needs a few black boxes, including theories about groups
Beyond folk-sociology: Extending Pietraszewski's model to large-group dynamics
Can group representations based on relational cues warrant the rich inferences typically drawn from group membership?
Coalitionary psychology and group dynamics on social media
Compassion within conflict: Toward a computational theory of social groups informed by maternal brain physiology
Conciliation and meta-contrast are important for understanding how people assign group memberships during conflict situations
Developmental antecedents of representing “group” behavior: A commentary on Pietraszewski's theory of groups
Group? What group? A computational model of the group needs a psychology of “us” (not “them”)
How do we know who may replace each other in triadic conflict roles?
Interacting with others while reacting to the environment
Internal versus external group conflicts
Latent structure learning as an alternative computation for group inference
Learning agents that acquire representations of social groups
More than one way to skin a cat: Addressing the arbitration problem in developmental science
On vagueness and parochialism in psychological research on groups
Paranoia reveals the complexity in assigning individuals to groups on the basis of inferred intentions
Private versus public: A dual model for resource-constrained conflict representations
Psychological and actual group formation: Conflict is neither necessary nor sufficient
Shadow banning, astroturfing, catfishing, and other online conflicts where beliefs about group membership diverge
Shared intentionality and the representation of groups; or, how to build a socially adept robot
Signals and cues of social groups
Social groups and the computational conundrums of delays, proximity, and loyalty
Societies and other kinds of social groups
The labelled container: Conceptual development of social group representations
Towards a computational network theory of social groups
Triadic conflict “primitives” can be reduced to welfare trade-off ratios
Using laboratory intergroup conflict and riots as a “stress test”
Author response
More “us,” less “them”: An appeal for pluralism – and stand-alone computational theorizing – in our science of social groups