Social Mode

,

  • Emotion research is now routinely referenced as a part of an evolutionary substrate. However, explicit experimental evolutionary analyses of emotions remain rare.

    The implications of natural selection for several classic questions about emotions and emotional disorders should be the focus of research programs that are stagnant with 19th and early 20th Century hypotheses that cannot be proven but are failed to be dismissed by those doing research in the area marring if not diluting the term ‘social scientist’.

    Emotions are NOT special modes of operation or unique states shaped by natural selection. They ARE conditioned artifacts of centuries of classical conditioning between flight or fight related contingencies that then are conditioned using conditioned products of those states to set up additional pairings that come to elicit response once related to fear, threat, escape from danger, avoidance of peril, and other euphemisms of exhaust [with all the physiological and nervous system components apparent as if a real threat or escape from isolation were present] from contingencies involving wide swings in homeostasis. They are conditioned most assuredly and supported by the environments (including people) that have notions [history in context] of similar states.

    Collectively they are, or they make up, a large scale of response parameters [behavior sets] that may have or potentially do increase fitness by learned adaptations to challenging situations that occurred over the course of the individual’s history and were taught to generations over the course of that tree’s evolution. Some societies are almost devoid of emotional content while others are mired in emotional waves as a ‘tradition’ or a cultural response to the vagaries of life’s changes.

    In all cases emotions are valenced.

    Valence, as used here means the property along a continuum (positive – negative) of an event, object, or state. Ambivalence here would refer to no particular valance based on the context or history of the organism. No, valences are not just for humans but are represented differentially by any organism that displays changes in affectations based on behavior.

    Valence is not an absolute property of any identified emotion but is relative based on context and history. Selection shapes each case where contingencies that have influenced fitness in the past shape expression. In situations that decrease fitness, negative emotions are useful and positive emotions are harmful.

    Selection has partially differentiated subtypes of emotions from generic precursor states to deal with specialized situations: our communication of internal states that are not available to view by the outside world. This communication of subjective states – emotions – has resulted in untidy associations that blur across dimensions rendering the quest for simple or objectivity futile. For some social scientists this state of affairs doubles their efforts. For others, the recognition of emotions as exhaust is good enough for both communication and but also the redirection of research time and effort on things, events and states that lead to a better understanding of what’s going on in the world. Non-scientists use the same approach to make their course corrections only those sets of changes lack a unique vocabulary to allow communication and efforts to be reinforced effectively by the environment.

    Selection has shaped mechanisms that control the expression of emotions on the basis of an individual’s appraised value of a state based on the past and the current context. This is the conversion of data to meaning. This meaning of events, etc. is the synthesis for the individual to use in evaluation of subsequent conditions – some of which may be related to avoidance and some of which may be related to acquisition of reinforcers whether they are goals, etc. or states of existence.

    The prevalence of emotional disorders can be attributed to several conflicting values [also conditioned in us all] and valences that go with them as factors that contribute to something being a ‘disorder’ [negative] or a ‘passion’ [positive].

    Evolution, Emotions, and Emotional Disorders

    –––––––

    Apr 9
  • I’m about half way through reading The Blue Sweater, by Jacqueline Novogratz.  Give me a another day or two and I should have it wrapped up.

    This is a great book, but not in that “great read” sense.  Sure, it’s a good read and an excellent way to spend a Sunday afternoon in the spring sun.  But it is more than a read.  A call to action? A warning to those that think making an impact is easy? A thesis on developing economies? A subtle case proving understanding behavior and cultural context is one of the more potent economic tools and a requirement for development success?  It’s all of those things so far.

    My first reaction was: how the heck does one end up where one does in life?  Jacqueline’s stories leave you wondering what the odds really are for all of our lives to end up where they do.  Yet at the same time I ask about the unlikely probability of Jacqueline’s life, the futures of the people she works with seem all too likely.  Certainly makes a strong case for what a culture and environment of exposure to many possibilities can do.  I suppose that’s one of the main points of this book.

    For those looking for a Dummies Guide to Changing the World.  This isn’t it.  As much as it is a call to action (do something!) it is also a warning that results do not come easy.  Though her story is tightly packed into 250 or so pages, you can tell that her work was not an overnight success.  The Acumen Fund and other successes are the result of decades of hard work (most of it before we had PCs, cell phones and the Internet!) and carefully forged relationships.  Heck, I’m not sure I could even learn 1 additional language in the same time she seemed to pick up 2 or 3 plus doing everything else.  Creating a microlending institution for developing countries and communities is not the easiest way to get involved.

    I was less surprised by the difficulties she had in adapting to behavior (economic, political, cultural) systems built on different consequences than those of the US.  Many people hold that there is some Platonic value system that will work anywhere and everywhere once people understand it.  There isn’t.  Jacqueline learned this.  The idea of consequences and associated returns to effort is universal to behavior modification but identifying what those consequences, returns and efforts are for specific cultures is an exceedingly difficult anthropological task.

    I can safely say I know very little details about Rwanda and many other areas in Africa.  Certainly I have an OK base of basic knowledge picked up from periodicals, documentaries, wikipedia and a handful of novels and non-fiction books.  This book goes deep enough to showcase that real people are far more complicated than an AP report or wiki entry can capture.  As descriptive as the book is in many aspects, I get the sense that only an extended trip to these locations could properly instill appreciation and understanding.

    Last tidbit from me until I finish the book.  The idea of running a fund to provide capital to businesses that can help eliminate poverty seems completely insane in a business sense.  and yet, after you see how they pull this off you’ll wonder why more big banks, VCs and money types aren’t invested in this approach.  I’d definitely like to get my hands on some data to compare ROI on this approach and this market versus Internet VCs, or banking for average small biz in America….

    Argh! So much to read, learn and do.  best to get on with it.

    The Blue Sweater Book Review – 50% done

    –––––––

    Apr 5
  • The market will not support all these photosharing sites in the long run.

    Here’s why:

    Twitter will be purchased or exclusively locked up in a strategic relationship by one of the companies that already has a photosharing set up/photo monetization platform.

    Under that scenerio the acquiring company is unlikely to promote such a disaggregated approach to the aggreagtion of media in microblogging.  If there is money to be made with Twitter it involves pushing people into monetizable experiences, like monetizable media destinations and transactions/etailing. (The social networks have finally figured this out e.g. MySpace/Citysearch)

    Sure, there will still be boutique image hosters and tiny URL providers, etc. etc.  But ultimately the world just doesn’t need 20 different places to dump your photos.   The ones that will still hang around will be the ones most tightly coupled with the apps that encourage the uploading.

    Photosharing Bubble

    –––––––

    Apr 5
  • Please listen to this file. It’s called the Shepard Risset glissando.  It’s very unnerving to me.

    If I were to put sound to  various cause and effect data trails from complex systems (like human behavior), I imagine it would sound a lot like that.

    • What is the cause/are the causes and effects of human behavior?
    • is stimulus a cause?
    • is it an effect?
    • can a behavior be a reinforcer at the same time as being reinforced?
    • Are schedules of reinforcement causes AND effects?  are they exhausted from the behavioral system as much as they are determinants?

    Perhaps these questions are just Saturday afternoon philosophical/blog musings.  However, I do think the strange loopiness of animal behavior (humans in particular) is what makes almost all models of behavior inconsistent and mostly wrong.  Or maybe just my understanding and application of them is wrong.

    I have another question.  Human memory is not like computer memory.  it’s definitively fuzzy… so…

    is there a difference between remembering  the past inaccurately or predicting the future inaccurately?

    in both cases aren’t we just modeling context/situation/filling in details based on limited inputs?

    and the biggest question is… DOES ANY OF THIS HELP UNDERSTANDING?

    for fun, more about strange loops here and here.

    Human Behavior is a Strange Loop

    –––––––

    Mar 28
  • Update 3/29/09: Danny Sullivan correctly pointed out to me that he is a publisher and an advertiser.  I’ll disagree on the idea that he is a “real user”, by which I meant “regular user”, because he is not nor I am.  We study websites, traffic and human behavior – we notice and ignore and react to things very differently than a user just flying by to get the latest news and views.  I do agree with Danny that my argument mostly matches his… thus, I’m only calling out Clemons argument.

    Update 3/28/09: Techcrunch keeps stirring this up.  Now Danny Sullivan replies…

    The most damaging part of both of their arguments is that neither one is arguing Clemons original argument and rebuttal mostly fail to convince his claims about the death of Internet Advertising.  He’s conclusions don’t match actual data and experience from the perspectives of an advertiser, a publisher nor really a regular user.

    These points are not defensible without real data:

    Users don’t trust ads
    Users don’t want to view ads
    Users don’t need ads
    Ads cannot be the sole source of funding for the internet
    Ad revenue will diminish because of brutal competition brought on by an oversupply of inventory, and it will be replaced in many instances by micropayments and subscription payments for content.
    There are numerous other business models that will work on the net, that will be tried, and that will succeed.

    In fact, let’s consider some counter examples:

    Someone sold 4 million Snuggies based on ads.  Did the people who responded to those ads not trust the ads?  Their behavior shows they did enough to fork over $15 bucks for a blanket with holes in it.  The better statement is some users don’t trust some ads.

    Users do want to view ads.  Millions of people love superbowl ads and actually seek them out online and on their TIVOs.  Online only ads that people do want to view include the millions of mini games they play, youtube videos they watch, contests they enter.  A better statement is that some users to want to view some ads, especially when the ads are not engaging, useful or catchy.

    Users do need ads.  Search engines and social graphs can only show you information about things that are already popular/reached tipping point.  They cannot show you stuff just coming out of the labs.  Users need ads to learn about new and different products and services.  And the only way to introduce people to new things is put new things alongside already known things.

    Ads are not the sole source of funding for the internet. Anyone who is claiming this is what web companies think clearly has not really studied the industry or worked at a web company and/or companies that extensively use the web in their business models.

    Ad revenue will continue to grow in the long run.  As long as businesses need to sell more product, more ad revenue will go into the market.  The difference is that the ad spend is spread among more and more entities, so individual businesses will get less ad revenue.

    Many other business models already work. and more will be created.  Selling apps, selling computer time, renting server space, selling subscriptions, donor models, barters, licensing, premium access…. I mean, gosh.  I don’t think we lack for business models that work.  The media is simply pointing to the high profile failures of big media companies that haven’t figured out to how to shoehorn it’s model into the internet way of doing things.

    Once again we see that pundits rarely represent the real story.  They don’t know the price of milk. Just talking to people in the industry and summarizing the conversation is not enough to predict the end of online advertising.

    See below for rest of my original response.

    —————

    Despite the impressive length,  a recent TechCrunch guest feature on the failure of internet advertising fails to reveal what’s really destroying the ad model online.  Clemons neither states what he claims is actually failing and doesn’t really prove it is. Alas, I will still attempt to refute the possible implications of his claim.

    It is not a particularly insightful observation that “The problem is not the medium, the problem is the message, and the fact that it is not trusted, not wanted, and not needed”. Of course people don’t like being distracted with ad messages.  That’s always been the case, that’s why marketers have to pay for ad placement.  Nothing new here.

    Advertising itself is not broken nor will ever go away.  As long as companies have products they need to push into market, they have to advertise, regardless of nature of the medium.  Play with the language and state definitions all you want – advertising will always be a part of our lives and media experiences.

    What’s wrong with the business models of sites that rely on advertising is the pricing, not the actual idea of advertising.  Spending in terms of dollars is down in all mediums, certainly.  However, the amount of advertising we’re exposed to is likely still growing.   I have a long post on all sorts of data points on this topic here.  The short of it:  marketers have a growing number  advertising impressions out there, everyone know’s how well they perform and thus the pricing is coming way down from the relatively overpriced “older” advertising models in print, radio and tv.  This shrinking pricing model puts pressure on the business from a margin standpoint and so the less efficient businesses fail.

    Yes, I generally hate banner, text, billboard ads and neon signs like everyone else. Except when I don’t.  And when I don’t that’s valuable to the company that paid for that placement and it’s valuable to me to be notified of something I might have missed.  We’re just arguing price.

    No, really why advertising is failing online…

    –––––––

    Mar 28
  • From an Invited Guest Author: Ron Williams…

    Republican Party is disintegrating. In many ways this is unfortunate. I have read the Republican Party platform and I find that I can agree with many of their positions, such as immigration and fiscal policy. Also, their platform position on personal responsibility resonates with me.

    However, the disintegration of the Party does not come from its stated platform, but from its politics. It amazes me how political the Republican establishment has become. The Party must be judged not on what it says but rather what it does. And what the Party does, is practice a set of politics which is self destructive and, in a very real sense, un-American. It is clear to me that the Republican Party is doing all it can to see that the country does not emerge from the current Recession in an orderly fashion.

    It seems the Republican Party is hoping the country in fact does fail to recover, so that they can say, “I told you so.“ I find that position to be actually un-American and, in many respects, traitorous. The Obama administration has been in office less than two months, and the Treasury Secretary in place an even shorter time than that, Yet the Republicans are already “harping” about a failed administration and a failed Treasury Secretary.

    We are in a war, an economic war. To actively work to cause the country to lose that war should be seen as an act of traitorous behavior. If the Democrats had worked as actively against President Bush in his pursuit of the Iraq war as the Republicans are actively working against President Obama in this economic war, the Republicans would have gone ballistic in their attacks. We should all go ballistic in our attacks against Republicans for their current behavior. They should be rewarded by losing even more seats in the next round of elections.

    Some in the party have an inkling their problems are and are trying to address these problems by looking at their platform and by looking at new ways of selling this platform to middle America. However, this effort is going to be stymied by the far will right wing of the party which is dedicated to its right wing issues and will suffer no “dilution“ of their message.

    At first blush, You would think there is a struggle for the heart and soul of the party, but that is not really the case. There is no question that right wing of the party will prevail. And the party will therefore remain a collection of Grumpy Old White Men (GOWMs), with a sprinkling of a few women and a minority here and there. Further, these GOWMs seem to really lament the changes that are occurring in this country. It is becoming younger. It is becoming a multi-cultural society, with no single group as a majority. It is becoming a society where women will play a leading role. It is becoming a country where the natural order is being turned on its head.

    I would suggest that this change in the natural order is causing them tremendous heartburn. But what makes matters even worse is their current failure to have developed any serious solutions. In response to the every problem facing this country it was clear that their one and only solution is “tax cut.“ But not just tax cuts in general, tax cuts for the wealthy. Their mantra appears to be if you cut taxes for the wealthy it will free up money to allow the wealthy to buy equipment, buy materials and higher new employees. The problem with this mantra is that it has been tried for the last eight years, and it has helped to bring us the current fiscal disaster. All of the Republican actions have been shown to not work. And it appears the party is not prepared to change its positions. Therefore, I believe the Republican Party is in a disastrous state, but because of its mind set its actions would not change and the party will continue to disintegrate. That is too bad, because we do need at least two parties to keep things in balance. It just appears that the second party is not going to be called “Republican.”


    Ronald Williams

    rwilliams@sbcglobal.net

    THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS DISINTEGRATING

    –––––––

    Mar 23
  • In human interactions, there’s nothing like an enemy – a casual face to a problem.   With AIG, the outrage at the bonuses is hitting a high fever pitch.  In fact, the outrage is seemingly out of whack for the offense versus far more costly and troubling issues like Health Care, the entire bail out situation, public school system failures, and ending the war/getting out.  Where’s our outrage on those bigger, costlier issues?  Why is it not as great?

    There’s no one to blame.

    With AIG, it’s easy.  Point your fingers at the big bad execs who took the bonuses and/or gave them out.  Those are the bad guys. Right?

    What I can’t figure out yet is WHY we need to have an iconic enemy.  Why does having a face to a problem seem to spur stronger reactions?

    Or, maybe this is just my own bias.

    Must think on this.

    However, I still find it very inconsistent that people are this concerned about $165 million when we’ve blown $2 trillion and still haven’t handled some pretty important issues.

    Fighting for $165 million but not Health Care? Bigger Bailouts? Getting out of Iraq?

    –––––––

    Mar 18
  • Across all mediums, advertising $$$ is off 2.8%.

    Of course, this is in line with the overall economy so it’s not totally surprising.  Advertising typically lags because the budgets go in so early into the spending season.

    A recession in ad spending that goes well into 2009 is going to crush many an Internet company, more than a few agencies, and a lot of traditional media companies.  Oh, by crush, I mean put them out of business for good.

    Unless you work on the ground in the advertising world it’s hard to understand just how devestating the recession is especially when consumption of media will always be going up.  That means there will always be more supply of advertising impressions and the cost of media businesses are NOT coming down.  With the ad spend so far down, the prices on this oversupply of inventory is highly depressed further adding pressure to a broken model.

    Many people ask me what I think then is going to work with media companies… well, I’ve said it before… media companies have to SELL SOMETHING REAL, not just ads.  Not just an impression.  Sell DVDs, sell shoes, sell licenses, sell special events… anything.  The ad rates simply will not cover the costs of running these media companies.

    Oh, and if we thought 08 numbers were bad, just wait for q1 2009 when we will see the real effect of ad budget cuts.

    Yes, I’m being a bit DoomsDayish.  Because there’s not a lot of runway left for folks and if they aren’t finding a strategy to cope by now, game over.

    Ad Spending Dropped 2.8% in 2008

    –––––––

    Mar 14
  • What seems to be missing from a lot of online business models is the balance between function – does it work – vs. perfect – is it best of breed/do everything you ever wanted/beautiful.

    It might be alarming to some, but functional is always better for a business.  Perfection is too costly for 99.99% of the businesses, especially start ups.

    Most of the bells and whistles I see Internet media folk put on stuff are completely worthless to the function.  Avoid this at all costs.

    Maximize this statement:  what is the least amount of energy we can expend to generate the consumer behavior we desire.

    After a product reaches critical mass, then you can spend lots of time eeking out perfection and small gains.

    Function vs. Perfection

    –––––––

    Mar 12
  • An interesting approach to knowledge mentioned in Stephen Wolfram’s blog:

    But what about all the actual knowledge that we as humans have accumulated?

    A lot of it is now on the web—in billions of pages of text. And with search engines, we can very efficiently search for specific terms and phrases in that text.

    But we can’t compute from that. And in effect, we can only answer questions that have been literally asked before. We can look things up, but we can’t figure anything new out.

    Let’s see where this goes!

    Wolfram|Alpha? – Computing we were promised 50 years ago?

    –––––––

    Mar 5
Previous Page Next Page

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Social Mode
    • Join 99 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Social Mode
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar