Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:43:57.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Private versus public: A dual model for resource-constrained conflict representations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2022

Simon DeDeo Open the ORCID record for Simon DeDeo [Opens in a new window]
Simon DeDeo*
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15208, USA. [email protected] Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 08541, USA; http://santafe.edu/~simon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pietraszewski's representation scheme is parsimonious and intuitive. However, internal mental representations may be subject to resource constraints that prefer more unusual systems such as sparse coding or compressed sensing. Pietraszewski's scheme may be most useful for understanding how agents communicate. Conflict may be driven in part by the complex interplay between parsimonious public representations and more resource-efficient internal ones.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e102
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Daniels, B. C., Krakauer, D. C., & Flack, J. C. (2012). Sparse code of conflict in a primate society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(35), 14259–14264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeDeo, S. (2014). Group minds and the case of Wikipedia. Human Computation, 1(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeDeo, S. (2016). Conflict and computation on Wikipedia: A finite-state machine analysis of editor interactions. Future Internet, 8(3), 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeDeo, S. (2017). Major transitions in political order. In Walker, S., Davies, P., & Ellis, G. (Eds.), From matter to life: Information and causality (pp. 393–428). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316584200.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoho, D. L. (2006). Compressed sensing. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 52(4), 1289–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, E. A., & DeDeo, S. (2015). Social feedback and the emergence of rank in animal society. PLoS Computational Biology, 11(9), e1004411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hobson, E. A., Mønster, D., & DeDeo, S. (2021). Aggression heuristics underlie animal dominance hierarchies and provide evidence of group-level social information. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(10), e2022912118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olshausen, B. A., & Field, D. J. (1997). Sparse coding with an overcomplete basis set: A strategy employed by V1? Vision Research, 37(23), 3311–3325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shizuka, D., & McDonald, D. B. (2012). A social network perspective on measurements of dominance hierarchies. Animal Behaviour, 83(4), 925–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar