Re: [xmca] intersubjectivity, deception, perhaps also theory of mind

From: Paul Dillon <phd_crit_think who-is-at>
Date: Mon Apr 30 2007 - 19:29:10 PDT

Wolff-Michael Roth <> wrote:"
"not the solipsist ego but with the WITH and
its unfolding into intersubjectivity and subjectivity"
  This doesn't really make sense . . . mixing two concepts "ego" and "subject" and assuming they are somehow related as describing the same "object domain". Any familiarity with cultural anthropology or psychology should have made clear that the subject is a cultural construction, jeez, that's what I thought Vygotsky was all about . . . the ego something related to the body including all of its glorious,sensorium that culture shapes into a "subject" . . subject as cultural construct of course presumes the existence of subject (as Mead so clearly understood) as related to other subjects, but these don't exist at the same ontological level as "ego" -- in fact that is one of the great problems for any moral philosophy. That greedy little ego has little to do with the frameworks in which subjects (such as great heros) exist.
  Paul Dillon

  Yes, that seems right, Mike. However, all of this is possible BECAUSE
there is intersubjectivity. We need a different method, begin the
other way around, not with the solipsist ego but with the WITH and
its unfolding into intersubjectivity and subjectivity. Regress is
possible because there is intersubjectivity. :-) Just some musings
from someone in the process of finishing a basement, doing drywalling
and plumbing, the right kind of stuff to create the conditions for
consciousness. . . pace Marx. Michael

On 30-Apr-07, at 10:40 AM, Mike Cole wrote:

Yes, that seems right, Michael. However, we are facing at least two
problems in trying
to analyse the data, and they may be insurmountable.

To play a game you have to achieve some degree of intersubjectivity
concerning the game and its rules. But this is a strategy game that
involves, as the transcripts and
fieldnotes indicate, deliberate deception. Now, how do you specify
the situation.
They have shared understanding of playing the game. But when one
player seeks to
decieve another (groans about a "great move" the other has made when
in fact it is
a bad move and the groan is meant to encourage if) what is the state
of intersubjectivity?
Person 1 may share Person 2's subjective interpretation while
Person2, being decieved,
does not understand Person 1's subjective interpretation. And so on

Never mind that we have no video, just audio plus observer notes. The
problem itself
appears intractable on the basis of the data we have.

By all means, disabuse me of my scepticism!!!

On 4/30/07, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
Isn't it that without intersubjectivity you couldn't even start a
game let alone talk let alone make more intersubjectivity, let alone
raising subjectivity and intersubjectivity as a problem???


On 25-Apr-07, at 8:46 AM, Stetsenko, Anna wrote:

Mike, I recommend "Collaborative congnition" by Bearison & Dorval
(2002) - they analyzed rules negotiation during game format to
access intersubjectivity. Seems closely related to your interest and
definitely not above the horizon.


From: on behalf of Mike Cole
Sent: Tue 4/24/2007 10:32 PM
To: Paul Dillon
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] intersubjectivity, deception, perhaps also theory
of mind

Hi Paul et al--

Seems like Minati and I have taken on a task that may be well over our
heads. And not only our heads. We asked Mike tomasello the same
about the relationship
between intersubjectivity, deception, and (implicitly) theory of mind we
asked you. Everyone comes back with answers that point over the horizon
(Martin-- by coincidence, my
first experiment in grad school was also on prisoners' dilemma-- lets
it for serendipity!!!). But Sartre, Searle, and other philosophers,
and even
GO masters, only leave me
in confusion. Seems time to sound the retreat to more accessible
issues. !!
(ps. Minati with her deeper knowledge of Indian culture and
philosophy may
have other ideas!)

On 4/24/07, Paul Dillon <> wrote:
> But just in case, check out the oldest game on earth, 5000+ years,
> still no computer can even beat an amateur master . .
> Deep blue shows the shallowness of chess/western mind, Kasparov
> saying: it
> was as though the machine read my mind! 1 million dollars for a
> computer
> program to beat an amateur go masters (SAY 2000 IN CHESS)
> By the way, how do you evaluate the gaze of a chess or go player
> as s/he
> looks at the opponent to judge whether s/he has grasped the
> intention of the
> play? That's really one for ethnographemics, yeah?
> Paul
> *Mike Cole * wrote:
> Dear XMCA-o-philes........
> Our visitor Minati has engaged me in working with her on kids
> playing a
> complicated game. What we have is a running
> transcript of the narrative and observational notes (no videotape).
> From
> preliminary analysis, we want to talk about the players
> establishing joint attention and intersubjectivity (they are both
> attending
> to the game, they know the rules, etc.) but they are both trying to
> win
> and
> engage in clearly deceptive behaviors.
> We have been looking for a literature that combines
> deception, and perhaps theory of mind. The Machiavellian
> intelligence literature ought to have it, but we have not found it
> (and we
> are talking humans here, not chimps, and 8-16
> year old humans, not infants).
> Can you provide us with any pointers of to look?
> mike (& Minati)
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> ------------------------------
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.<
> evt=48245/*
> zbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM->
xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
xmca mailing list
Received on Mon Apr 30 20:30 PDT 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 21 2008 - 16:41:48 PDT