Behavioral and Brain Sciences:1-62 (forthcoming)

Abstract
We don't yet have adequate theories of what the human mind is representing when it represents a social group. Worse still, many people think we do. This mistaken belief is a consequence of the state of play: Until now, researchers have relied on their own intuitions to link up the concept social group on the one hand, and the results of particular studies or models on the other. While necessary, this reliance on intuition has been purchased at considerable cost. When looked at soberly, existing theories of social groups are either literal, but not remotely adequate, or simply metaphorical. Intuition is filling in the gaps of an explicit theory. This paper presents a computational theory of what, literally, a group representation is in the context of conflict: it is the assignment of agents to specific roles within a small number of triadic interaction types. This “mental definition” of a group paves the way for a computational theory of social groups—in that it provides a theory of what exactly the information-processing problem of representing and reasoning about a group is. For psychologists, this paper offers a different way to conceptualize and study groups, and suggests that a non-tautological definition of a social group is possible. For cognitive scientists, this paper provides a computational benchmark against which natural and artificial intelligences can be held.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0140525x21000583
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,214
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

How Groups Persist.August Faller - 2019 - Synthese 198 (8):1-15.
Model Theory of Finite and Pseudofinite Groups.Dugald Macpherson - 2018 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 57 (1-2):159-184.
Social Structures and the Ontology of Social Groups.Katherine Ritchie - 2020 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 100 (2):402-424.
Social Creationism and Social Groups.Katherine Ritchie - 2018 - In Kendy Hess, Violetta Igneski & Tracy Isaacs (eds.), Collectivity: Ontology, Ethics, and Social Justice. London, UK: pp. 13-34.
Groups as Pluralities.John Horden & Dan López de Sa - 2020 - Synthese 198 (11):10237-10271.
The Ontology of Social Groups.Amie Thomasson - 2019 - Synthese 196 (12):4829-4845.
Social Action In Large Groups.Ulrich Baltzer - 2003 - ProtoSociology 18:127-136.
Young, Gilbert, and Social Groups.Matthew D. Kuchem - 2020 - Social Theory and Practice 46 (4):737-763.
Group Problem Solving.Patrick R. Laughlin - 2011 - Princeton University Press.
Effective Aspects of Profinite Groups.Rick L. Smith - 1981 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 46 (4):851-863.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-04-27

Total views
5 ( #1,203,756 of 2,507,652 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,871 of 2,507,652 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes