Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Physicists take on question of "logic or emotion" and unify sociological theories

#1
C C Offline
Logic or emotion: Which is more valuable?
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2...-valuable/

INTRO: The argument about whether head or heart is more valuable has raged forever. Would you rather possess the clear rationality of the Greek god Apollo or the wild emotion of Dionysus? The cold logic of Mr. Spock from “Star Trek” or the messy humanity of Dr. McCoy?

The answer, according to Leonard Mlodinow, is moot. Why? He argues in his new book, “Emotional: How Feelings Shape Our Thinking,” that the two constitute a kind of false dichotomy because they’re actually inseparable.

“Even if you think you’re applying cold reason, you’re not,” said Mlodinow, who spoke about his book last week in a virtual Harvard Science Book Talk presented by the University’s Division of Science, Cabot Science Library, and Harvard Book Store.

A theoretical physicist by training, Mlodinow spent years on the faculty at the California Institute of Technology but left to write 11 science books, including five best-sellers, plus several episodes of TV shows such as “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” “MacGyver,” and “Night Court,” among others. “Emotional” digs into recent discoveries in neuroscience and psychology — fields entirely different from his own — to explain how feelings, like rage, fear, disgust, and joy, are the unconscious rudders behind all human decision-making.

“Emotions play a hidden role in our behavior,” Mlodinow said. They help the brain choose what sensory information to pay attention to, how to process it, and what other data — such as memories or goals — to weave into decisions. For example, said Mlodinow, when you walk through an unfamiliar neighborhood, fear can amplify the sound of a twig breaking a block away, a sound you might otherwise ignore.

Before jumping into the book’s details, discussion moderator Nick Owchar, executive director of advancement communications at Claremont Graduate University and former deputy book editor of the Los Angeles Times, wanted to know: Why would a theoretical physicist even want to write a book about emotions? (MORE - details)


Physicists unify sociological theories that explain social stability
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/941994

RELEASE: Humans prefer stable relationships and love to avoid social tensions. Sociology so far uses two concepts to describe this preference for social stability, namely, (Social) Balance Theory and the theory of homophily (“birds of a feather flock together”).

Researchers from the Complexity Science Hub Vienna (CSH) now propose a simpler approach. They were able to boil the emergence of stable societies down to one of the two concepts alone: homophily, or our preference to interact with people similar to ourselves.

The researchers show that social balance then follows automatically and demonstrate this fact with data from the Massive Multiplayer Online Game Pardus. The study just appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

How does social balance emerge? “To explain how innovative this paper is, we have to elaborate on Social Balance Theory first,” says CSH President Stefan Thurner, one of the authors of the paper. Social Balance Theory (SBT), introduced by the Austrian sociologist Fritz Heider in 1946, originally described the interpersonal relations between three individuals.

According to SBT, three people connecting to each other form triangles which can be called balanced or unbalanced, depending on the likes and dislikes between the three individuals. An example for a balanced triangle is, when Anna likes Bert, Bert likes Corinna, and Corinna likes Anna. If all of them dislike each other, the triad would be unbalanced. (For other variants, see figure).

The Social Balance Theory claims that unbalanced relationships cause bad feelings, why people tend to avoid them. “Which is exactly what we can observe – and count – in real-world societies,” elaborates complexity scientist Tuan Minh Pham, the first author of the study. “Balanced triangles appear way more often than we would expect if they were statistically even distributed. Conversely, unbalanced triangles are underrepresented in societies.”

According to this theory, people consider triadic information before they form (or change) their social relations: If Anna likes Bert, but Bert does not like Corinna, Anna might decide to dump Corinna just to keep the balance. “Yet we think it is way too complicated for people to think in triangles all the time,” says Pham.

Towards a balanced society via homophily. Instead, the scientists tried what happens when they applied the concept of homophily alone. “For our theory, we assume that individuals tend to minimize their social stress; to do so, they prefer to interact with people they like. They might choose somebody to become a friend because he or she has the same opinion, or religion, or education, for instance,” says Pham. Based on homophilic one-to-one interactions, the computer simulation produced a society that almost magically self-organized towards more stability. “The society looked exactly like a society that follows Social Balance Theory, but without individuals having to consider triangles,” Tuan Minh Pham points out.

To test this hypothesis, the scientists used data from the free Massive Multiplayer Online Game Pardus. In the futuristic Pardus world, some 100,000 players interact economically and socially in space, form friendships, co-operate or compete, make friends and fight enemies. Since the game went online in 2004, the scientists log every single interaction between the gamers; by subscribing, the users give their consent that the data can be used for scientific purposes.

“We showed in several studies already that the players behave online just like they would behave in real life,” says Thurner. “That makes Pardus such a great data source to study group formation and social dynamics.”

In a further step, the scientists plan to test their findings with data from a large online social experiment pursued together with CSH External Faculty member Mirta Galesic from the Santa Fe Institute. “In physics, we love simple formulas – we call them beautiful,” says Thurner. “With this paper we explain seemingly complicated human interactions in a very simple way. Homophily as the driving force for social balance and stability – I would say, this is a really beautiful new understanding in sociology.”
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Five multiverse theories - Sabine Hossenfelder (video) C C 1 624 Jun 5, 2019 07:26 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  Adults: please stop peeing in swimming pools + Physicists 'teleport' logic operation C C 0 215 Jun 1, 2019 06:01 AM
Last Post: C C
  Thorny Question Of Whether To Build Another Particle Collider C C 0 342 Feb 5, 2019 08:03 PM
Last Post: C C
  Slippery math of causation + How nature [or particle theories] became unnatural C C 0 408 Jun 30, 2018 07:54 AM
Last Post: C C
  Which physics question is most important? + Best explanation for everything C C 3 603 Dec 26, 2017 10:22 PM
Last Post: Syne
  This year's Alan Alda flame challenge question elte 7 1,288 Oct 30, 2016 07:08 PM
Last Post: elte
  Shift from equations to algorithms + Goodbye spacetime logic + DE distortion of GW C C 0 701 Jan 24, 2016 08:13 PM
Last Post: C C
  Why String Theory Still Offers Hope We Can Unify Physics C C 0 876 Dec 27, 2014 03:56 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)