Joseph, Rainer -- On the subject of levels (here I think we are dealing with a compositional hierarchy), I found Rainer's quick description to be correct as far as it goes. Then Joseph said..
-snip- >First, the reference to levels is important, but in my opinion more attention needs to be paid to the applicable interactive relationships and movement between levels. S: We need to be careful with this "interaction' locution. If there truly are different levels, then their dynamical rates must be different enough so that there could not be direct 'interaction' -- rather indirect 'transactions' between them. >Rainer writes: " . . . because evolution on the one level does not necessarily entail the same evolution on the other, . . ." To me, this leaves totally open the case that evolution on the two levels may be the same or share important characteristics. S: Evolution at one level may have effects upon the other level, but in specific ways. From the social level down to the individual, we would have altered signals. From the individual up to the social, only an ensemble signal from many individuals would be received at the social level. No direct upward communication between levels. >Further in the same paragraph we read: "...social groups consist of individuals which are to the social field generated by that group a singularity which is one source of this field at the same time. Hence, the agglomeration of individuals in groups cannot be described by the same language that is applied to describe the individuals. One is the macro-level (sociology), the other is the micro-level (psychology).The first is emergent with respect to the latter." >This, to me again, is another 'argument by separation', which assumes a singularity that is limited to the psychologically trivial separate physical existence of the individual, while eliminating /a priori/ the possibility of psychologically significant individual - group mutual interaction. It seems thus to ignore the entire literature on /group/ psychology. S: But this statement ignores the strictures on communication between levels. It cannot be direct mutual INTERaction. Consensus or voting must occur among individuals in order to affect the collective. Separation is the essence of hierarchy. It is possible that a system might be set up so that one individual -- the Chief -- is given special access to the social level, but he/she must be the conduit to report the consensus. STAN On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>wrote: > Dear Raquel, Dear Colleagues, > > I have been following the development of this topic with an interest that > is > not unmixed with concern. In particular, since we are supposed to deal with > 'foundations', with some of the assumptions made by Rainer in his note. > > First, the reference to levels is important, but in my opinion more > attention needs to > be paid to the applicable interactive relationships and movement between > levels. > > Rainer writes: " . . . because evolution on the one level does not > necessarily entail the same evolution on the other, . . ." To me, this > leaves totally > open the case that evolution on the two levels may be the same or share > important characteristics. > > Further in the same paragraph we read: "...social groups consist of > individuals which are to the social field generated by that group a > singularity which is one source of this field at the same time. Hence, the > agglomeration of individuals in groups cannot be described by the > same language that is applied to describe the individuals. One is the > macro-level (sociology), the other is the micro-level (psychology).The > first > is emergent with respect to the latter." > > This, to me again, is another 'argument by separation', which assumes a > singularity that is limited to the psychologically trivial separate > physical > existence of the individual, while eliminating /a priori/ the possibility > of > psychologically significant individual - group mutual interaction. It seems > thus to ignore the entire literature on /group/ psychology. > > The 'agglomeration' of individually into groups is not a random matter, (if > in fact random has any meaning in the real world) but follows a dynamics > involving the potential individual-group relations to which I referred > above. > > My concern, then, is that the implied model may negatively influence the > methodology of your study, Raquel, with whose objectives I am certainly in > agreement. Thus, I was not encouraged by the statistical format implied > by your most recent note, with its emphasis on quantitative measures that > may miss key properties of the sociotype. > > I hope you will take these comments in the spirit of inquiry in which they > are intended. > > Best wishes, > > Joseph > > > Dear Raquel, > > may I just point out that your conception which I find quite promising, > should be modified somewhat as to the symmetry between micro- and > macrolevels(a point that is actually very important in order to > introduce any concepts of emergence into this): Hence, if visualizing > the sociality of human beings as a kind of biological selection criterium > that emerged some time during the hominization period and had to prove > its evolutionary advantages by becoming a dominating paradigm, then > sociality would have a micro-component (psychotype) which is the formal > equivalent of the biological genotype, and a macro-component (sociotype) > which is the formal equivalent of the biological phenotype. > > The advantage of defining two of these levels is twofold: first, it is > more correct, because evolution on the one level does not necessarily > entail the same evolution on the other, second, social groups consist of > individuals which are to the social field generated by that group a > singularity which is one source of this field at the same time. Hence, > the agglomeration of individuals in groups cannot be described by the > same language that is applied to describe the individuals. One is the > macro-level (sociology), the other is the micro-level (psychology).The > first is emergent with respect to the latter. > > Best, > Rainer > > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
