No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Social groups and the computational conundrums of delays, proximity, and loyalty
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 July 2022
Abstract
Even though Pietraszewski acknowledges the tentative nature of the theory and the multiple lines of adjacent research needed to flesh it out, he insists that the finite set of primitives he identified is necessary and sufficient for defining social groups in the context of conflict. In this commentary I expose three interrelated conundrums that cast doubt on this simplistic presumption.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malpas, J. (2012). Putting space in place: Philosophical topography and relational geography. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30(2), 226–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simandan, D. (2016). Proximity, subjectivity, and space: Rethinking distance in human geography. Geoforum, 75, 249–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simandan, D. (2018). Competition, contingency, and destabilization in urban assemblages and actor-networks. Urban Geography, 39(5), 655–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simandan, D. (2019a). Revisiting positionality and the thesis of situated knowledge. Dialogues in Human Geography, 9(2), 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simandan, D. (2019b). Competition, delays, and coevolution in markets and politics. Geoforum, 98, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simandan, D. (2019c). Iterative lagged asymmetric responses in strategic management and long-range planning. Time & Society, 28(4), 1363–1381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simandan, D. (2020). Being surprised and surprising ourselves: A geography of personal and social change. Progress in Human Geography, 44(1), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.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