Phil 1.24.18

7:00 – 5:00 ASRC MKT

  • H1: Groups are defined by a common location, orientation, and velocity (LOV) through a navigable physical or cognitive space. The amount of group cohesion and identification is proportional to the amount of similarity along all three axis.
  • H2: Group Behavior emerges from mutual influence, based on awareness and trust. Mutual influence is facilitated by Dimension Reduction: The lower the number of dimensions, the easier it is to produce a group.
  • H3: Group behavior has three distinct patterns: Nomadic, Flocking and Stampeding. These behaviors are dictated by the level of trust and awareness between individuals having similar LOVs
    • H3a: The trustworthiness of the underlying information space can be inferred from the group behaviors through belief space. All agents  seek out fitness peaks (reward gradients) and avoids valleys (risk gradients) within the space. (Risk = negative heading alignment, increase speed. Reward = positive heading alignment, decrease speed.)
      • Nomadic emphasizes environmental gradients as an individual or small group of agents. This supports the broadest awareness of the belief space, though it may be difficult to infer fitness peaks. Gradient discovery is  less influences by additional social effects,
      • Flocking behavior results from environmentally constrained social gradient seeking. For example, distance attenuates social influence. If an agent finds a risk or reward, that information cascades through the population as a function of the environmental constraints. (Note: In-group and out group could be manifestations of pure social gradient creation.)
      • Stampede emphasizes social gradients. This becomes easier as groups become larger and a strong ‘social reality’ occurs. When social influence is dominant at the expense of environmental awareness, a runaway stampede can occur. The beliefs and associated information that underlie a stampede can be inferred to be untrustworthy.
  • H4: Individual trajectories through these spaces, when combined with large numbers of other individual trajectories produce maps which reflect the dimensions that define the groups in that space.
  • These conclusions can be derived though
  • Continuing with BIC
    • GroupIdentification
  • Fundamentals of Data Visualization
    • I’m very excited to announce my latest project, a book on data visualization. The working title is “Fundamentals of Data Visualization”. The book will be published with O’Reilly, and a preview is available here. The entire book is written in R Markdown, and the figures are made with ggplot2. The source for the book is available on github.
  • Sex differences in the use of social information emerge under conditions of risk
    • Social learning provides an effective route to gaining up-to-date information, particularly when information is costly to obtain asocially. Theoretical work predicts that the willingness to switch between using asocial and social sources of information will vary between individuals according to their risk tolerance. We tested the prediction that, where there are sex differences in risk tolerance, altering the variance of the payoffs of using asocial and social information differentially influences the probability of social information use by sex. In a computer-based task that involved building a virtual spaceship, men and women (N = 88) were given the option of using either asocial or social sources of information to improve their performance. When the asocial option was risky (i.e., the participant’s score could markedly increase or decrease) and the social option was safe (i.e., their score could slightly increase or remain the same), women, but not men, were more likely to use the social option than the asocial option. In all other conditions, both women and men preferentially used the asocial option to a similar degree. 
  • Thinking Fast and Slow on Networks: Co-evolution of Cognition and Cooperation in Structured Populations
    •  In line with past work in well-mixed populations, we find that selection favors either the intuitive defector (ID) strategy which never deliberates, or the dual-process cooperator (DC) strategy which intuitively cooperates but uses deliberation to switch to defection in Prisoner’s Dilemma games. We find that sparser networks (i.e. smaller average degree) facilitate the success of DC over ID, while also reducing the level of deliberation that DC agents engage in; and that these results generalize across different kinds of networks.
  • Joanna J Bryson 7:30 AM – 24 Jan 2018: This didn’t happen because humans are evil. It happens because intelligence is computation—an expensive physical process—and therefore limited. Thread very worth reading.
  • A bit more Angular
  • Compared the speed of execution for LSTM on my and Aaron’s boxes. His newer card is a bit faster than my TITAN
  • Most of the day was spent putting together the ppt for the ML/AI workshop on Monday

One thought on “Phil 1.24.18

  1. Pingback: Phil 1.26.18 – viztales

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s