Hopefully I did them justice. There is a lot of work behind those ideas that I was not able to cover.
Personally, I am honestly most excited about figuring out ways to understand how people are framing their choices (modeling the modeler). It is directly relevant to work I am doing.
"if we want to stop underfitting the context, we have to stop overfitting the brain." Great line, love this! Maybe also, stop overfitting the environment, since the traditional externalized view not only ignores relational interactions and transactions, but puts the burden fully on external variables (384 and counting, many conceptualized as outside the body) to do the heavy lifting.
It seems like there's an additional layer of context, in the sense of knowing when and where something becomes relevant context (i.e. the context for knowing which auxiliary assumption applies). What would it mean to study Jupiter's gravitation not as an object that happens to later get referenced as a contextual factor, but explicitly the conditions under which it becomes relevant *as* context for different things? Perhaps this question is incoherent or impossible. In any case, the appeal of the traditional external variables approach (including Cartography) is that breaking down everything into these little variables at least makes it easier to pick out particular sources of influence, however incomplete - whereas with the subjective and transactional frames it gets a lot more slippery and/or holistic. I suspect we need all three approaches, and more.
Good point. If it's relational, the over fitting happens on both sides.
Agreed that we probably need all three. Perhaps the right way to think of these approaches is not as theories but as lenses. Each has its flaws and difficulties, and I've even considered writing a part three that is just about the difficulty of enumerating all the context. But maybe their errors don't perfectly overlap, and if so, then perhaps we can triangulate the truth at the intersection of the three.
I don't quite follow your Jupiter example. Is the idea that we study contexts where some factor x is relevant to understand what other factors are relevant within situations where x is relevant?
Thanks as always for expanding my mind and my models. I'm definitely looking more into nudge cartography and 4E cognition.
Hopefully I did them justice. There is a lot of work behind those ideas that I was not able to cover.
Personally, I am honestly most excited about figuring out ways to understand how people are framing their choices (modeling the modeler). It is directly relevant to work I am doing.
"if we want to stop underfitting the context, we have to stop overfitting the brain." Great line, love this! Maybe also, stop overfitting the environment, since the traditional externalized view not only ignores relational interactions and transactions, but puts the burden fully on external variables (384 and counting, many conceptualized as outside the body) to do the heavy lifting.
It seems like there's an additional layer of context, in the sense of knowing when and where something becomes relevant context (i.e. the context for knowing which auxiliary assumption applies). What would it mean to study Jupiter's gravitation not as an object that happens to later get referenced as a contextual factor, but explicitly the conditions under which it becomes relevant *as* context for different things? Perhaps this question is incoherent or impossible. In any case, the appeal of the traditional external variables approach (including Cartography) is that breaking down everything into these little variables at least makes it easier to pick out particular sources of influence, however incomplete - whereas with the subjective and transactional frames it gets a lot more slippery and/or holistic. I suspect we need all three approaches, and more.
Good point. If it's relational, the over fitting happens on both sides.
Agreed that we probably need all three. Perhaps the right way to think of these approaches is not as theories but as lenses. Each has its flaws and difficulties, and I've even considered writing a part three that is just about the difficulty of enumerating all the context. But maybe their errors don't perfectly overlap, and if so, then perhaps we can triangulate the truth at the intersection of the three.
I don't quite follow your Jupiter example. Is the idea that we study contexts where some factor x is relevant to understand what other factors are relevant within situations where x is relevant?