Introduction E9F5FC

Questions FFFFC0

• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

Information Integration Theory

Experimental results about mathematical models

Addition

• FTC 105: Size = Height + Width (for children)
• USC: Fair share = Contribution + Effort

Multiplication

• FTC 52: Response = Motivation x Incentive
• FTC 105: Size = Height x Width (after learning)
• FTC 160: Performance = Motivation x Ability (sometime averaging)

Addition or Averaging?

• FTC 160: Motivation = Performance - Ability
• FTC 160: Ability = Performance - Motivation
• FTC 161: Helping = Goodness + Money (for small children)

Averaging

• FTC 7: Liking = Level-headed + Humorless
• FTC 43: Blame = Intent + Harm
• FTC 55: Judgments of marriage satisfaction by divorced women based on sets of incidents.
• FTC 57: Attitudes towards US presidents (based on positive and negative paragraphs about biography)
• FTC 111: Social desirability = (mean) adjective + adjective
• FTC 119: Likableness = Noun + Verb
• FTC 142: Blame = Intent + Harm - Extenuation. Revised judgments based on extenuating circumstances from spouse

Sources

Norman H. Anderson

• Information Integration Approach to Emotions and Their Measurement. 1989.
• Contributions To Information Integration Theory: Volume 1: Cognition. 1991.
• Contributions To Information Integration Theory: Volume 2: Social. 1991.
• Contributions To Information Integration Theory: Volume 3: Developmental. 1991.
• A Functional Theory of Cognition. 1996.
• Unified Social Cognition. 2008.
• Moral Science. 2017.

Other sources

• IIT&FM Research Center
• 2019 Conference in France

Relating Information Integration Theory with Systems 1 and 2

I will sketch out a theory of consciousness that I think may relate your theory with that of Kahnemann and Tversky. In my theory, there are three levels of reflection:

• stepping-in
• stepping-out
• a state of deciding between the two - this is consciousness

In Kahnemann and Tversky's theory, the first two refer to their System 1 and System 2. I would say that:

• System 1 is the mind that unconsciously "knows", gives one answer, is associative, semantic, intuitive.
• System 2 is the mind that consciously "does not know", asks a question that may require several different answers, is dissasociative, syntactic, rational.

In my thinking, this yields a duality of knowledge where we try to consciously model what we unconsciously know. Our unconscious speaks to our conscious with emotions, and our conscious imposes cognition on our unconscious. Neurologically, this duality is championed by the two hemispheres - typically the right hemisphere is the advocate for System 1 and the left hemisphere is the advocate for System 2. In society, similarly we have gender roles where the female role favors System 1 and the male role favors System 2.

The upshot is that we can, through consciousness, balance these two very different perspectives. This duality is also the basis for logic, as with the logical square, where we can have a dialogue between what we know and what we don't know.

Your theory has demonstrated after many experiments that there are three models that the mind implements: Averaging, Adding and Multiplying. Why these three models? My idea is that:

• System 1 is based on Averaging. Thus our knowledge builds like a neural network.
• System 2 instead breaks that apart into Adding and Multiplying.

Then Consciousness compares what we get relating these two outlooks.

At some point, what I think I should do is go through your books, Unified Social Cognition and A Functional Theory of Cognition, and simply make a list of the experiments where the different models arise. Then I could see if my idea is tenable.

I am curious if there is anyone who is compiling lists of experiments related to your theory, and more generally, if there is anything online. I couldn't find anything.

Two self-evident propositions are basic in psychological science. The Axiom of Purposivenessrecognizes that thought and action are functional, directed toward goals. The Axiom of Integrationrecognizes that thought and action depend on joint operation of multiple variables. Two cognitive processes—valuationof stimulus informers to construct their functional, goal-relevant values and integrationof multiple values into a unitary response—are thus basic inthought and action as shown in the Information Integration Diagram (Figure 1.1). (Moral Science, page 1)

This is anti-physical in that physics admits of no goals. Also, the binding problem is that there is no physical explanation or mechanism for the integration of information. The mind is thus anti-physical.

• Nonparallelism means that there is a dependency as with weighted averaging. Parallelism indicates nondependency. Thus the conscious mind works to distinguish parameters so that they are nondependent, additive. Then each separate parameter can be adjusted multiplicatively.