Reality TV interactions and rules using SNePS

Reality TV interactions and rules using SNePS PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 80 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

What does ?Reality" TV offer to the cognitive/social scientist?. Basic social interaction/behavior, in a contrived setting.A controlled environment, can isolate variables/factors.Examine behavior leading to formation of ?alliances"Reality TV game-play can serve as a microcosm for societal behavio

Download Presentation

Reality TV interactions and rules using SNePS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


1. Reality TV interactions and rules using SNePS A. Patrice Seyed 9/21/2007 SNeRG

2. What does “Reality” TV offer to the cognitive/social scientist? Basic social interaction/behavior, in a contrived setting. A controlled environment, can isolate variables/factors. Examine behavior leading to formation of “alliances” Reality TV game-play can serve as a microcosm for societal behavior expresses in competitive actual world scenarios. Observe how particular personality types interact Consider it as an application of descriptive models of personality, and observe how particular traits interact.

3. Goals Make distinction between internal beliefs and beliefs about internal beliefs of others; and represent its role. Abstraction between what you believe and what you hold as the beliefs of others, and what factors lead to impact they have on each other. Consider what behavior leads to success, in the game sense. Introduce social interactions which potentially lead to alliance-forming. Leverage SNePS to represent such mechanisms. Intensional knowledge rep. and relevant inference-making for a player to make decisions on alliance-forming. In this case information maintained as a third-person knowledge rather than from perspective of agent

4. Assumptions Alliances form based on social interactions and revealed personality compatibilities within their context. Those participants who interact or “socialize” more with other individuals tend to perform better, as a direct effect of being exposed to more alliance-forming possibilities. viz. Those forward enough to offer gestures/cues (e.g. smile) and advances (e.g. invitation) are rewarded by finding out if another member is a viable alliance member. Layers of social involvement leading to alliance-forming Awareness: another player becomes a candidate for an alliance based on a basic, positive interaction Awareness + overt [in this case only positive] gesture generates a decision on another’s cognitive state regarding them, in terms of “liking” Awareness + overt gesture + revelation of personality types that occur through the social interaction/event leads to whether or not an alliance is formed between the individuals. Once personality reveals last layers, both members are equally able to determine if an alliance is possible.

5. Assumptions (cont.) Layers of social involvement leading to alliance-forming Isolated invitation+ positive gesture (in context) generates a decision on another’s cognitive state regarding them, in terms of “liking” Isolated invitation + positive gesture + revelation of personality types that occur through the social interaction/event leads to whether or not an alliance is formed between the individuals

6. Assumptions (cont.) How personality interactions resolve (broad strokes): social and social (: ]) Agreeable, leads to liking social and introvert (: () Incompatible communication styles, leads to disliking Introvert and introvert (: |) uncertainty, potential still there

7. Relations Class Object Member Actor Social event Personality [type] Gesture Task

8. Constants Peter, Paul, and Mary are individuals. Actors act, members witness acts pool, barbeque, ice cream, and workout are social events. Social and introvert are personality types. compliment and offering food are gestures.

9. Propositions (relative to primitive social scenarios) If an actor A smiles at member B, member B believes member A may like them. 1st level is established. social sense: giving them the impression of liking game sense: candidate for alliance (describe (assert forall ($x $y) ant(build actor *x act smiles member *y) cq(build actor *y act believes object (build actor *x act may\ like member *y))))

10. Propositions (cont.) If a member B believes member A may like them, and member A invites them to a social event, member B believes member A likes them. 2nd level established social sense: leading them to believe liking game sense: now open to determine if alliance is feasible (describe (assert forall ($x $y $z) &ant((build actor *y act believes object (build actor *x act may\ like member *y)) (build actor *x act invites social\ event *z member *y)) cq(build actor *y act believes object (build actor *x act likes member *y))))

11. Propositions (cont.) If member A invites member B to a social event, and member A performs a gesture at the social event, member B believes member A likes them. 2nd level established social sense: leading them to believe liking game sense: now open to determine if alliance is feasible (describe (assert forall ($x $y $z) &ant((build actor *x act invites social\ event *z member *y) (build actor *x act performs gesture compliment social\ event *z member *y)) cq(build actor *y act believes object (build actor *x act likes member *y))))

12. Propositions (cont.) If member B believes member A likes them, the following can be determined: If members are socially compatible based on personality type, (social/social) (key alliance) 3rd level established social sense: they like each other. game sense: they form an alliance. Otherwise: If one member is social and one member is an introvert, they now do not like each other. If both members are introvert personality type, they may like each other. (potential alliance)

13.

14. Future direction Inference rules for introvert/introvert liking resolution Leverage SNePS as cognitive reasoning rather than social simulation Additional propositions that provide more detail that depicts social interaction possibilities. Incorporate emotional reaction, as it is observed as a communication mechanism. More “interplay” between members in what leads to level 1-3. Allow for member’s actions to be a reflection of attempt to “mold” another member’s believes about them. Integrate sociological concept of looking-glass self Imagine how we appear, imagine the judgment, and develop our self through the judgments of others Developmentally speaking, we learn to see ourselves as others do

15. Future direction (cont.) Incorporate actual reality TV game rules Consider passage of time or simply rounds Evaluate usefulness of Situational Logic as formulated by Barwise and Perry Multiple alliances, varying sizes Resolution of primary vs. secondary alliance What is involved in prioritization. Include fine-grained personality types, “Big Five” Factors Myers-Briggs Indicator / Jungian Personality Types Ground the inference rules Reconcile reality TV observations with empirical-based studies in social psychology, and integrate into model. Still: “The intuitive grouping of appraisal frames into sets that form identifiable components of complete interpretive personality types is a hard problem on which little progress is made.” (Using the Affective Reasoner to Support Social Simulations, Elliot and Ortony, 1992)

16. Demo Demo of interactions Rules of Big Brother Discussion

  • Login