Enjoyed this Andrea, thanks. I have so many questions though! While the concept of affordances makes sense, I can’t find much in terms of explanatory power within Eco Psyche that contends with prior expectations and belief updating. I was hoping Harry might delve into that.
For example, the go to example of a cup affording grasping etc and to use Harry’s example of infants reaching and grabbing for things- what if we put a cup down and the infant grasps it and picks it up; then on a different occasion we put the cup down but this time weigh it down so it can’t be picked up (too heavy)- the cup still affords grasping but it can’t be lifted - how does Eco Psyche contend with what happens now? If you can share any resources, that would be great!
Hi Jon, thanks for the great comment, good to have to consider it. Off the top of my head, I imagine this might be best approached as a matter of regularities --the body aligns with what is but when there is a deviation (such as the cup suddenly being heavy) attention would be given and in so doing (as that very process) the regularity parameters would be shifting. So this could be modeled as updating priors without any trouble right? In general the the idea and the modeling goes together rather well because the body is itself in alignment with all it is encountering, including its own priors. Here are a few papers that might help with this:
Thank you for the reply Andria and for the shared papers. I am familiar with some of them and on reading I can't help but see aspects of Active Inference and Sensorimotor Contingency Theory (Enactivism) popping up from time to time. Harry's concept of 'history of attunement' seems to be better described through the concept of Varela, Thompson and Rosche's 'structured coupling'. It's funny that most of the action orientated theories of cognition tend to say the same thing and share commonalities until the P word is mentioned! Thanks again, have a lovely day.
Indeed. I suppose this is why I try to unstick the words and models from the process itself…not sure I am succeeding with that yet haha….but I find many of the same helpful ideas are expressed in different terms and models that often see themselves as rivals. It’s hard not to try and ‘own’ the idea in one theory to the exclusion of others, probably because depending from where we approach it, it will seem to us that something else fit ‘first’ with one or the other. Or we define words (especially the P) differently and end up getting tangled over mismatched definitions… Is this rambling making any sense? Feel free to suggest some sources if you see places where this is communicated more fluidly. And thanks for the input.
You’re making perfect sense and I agree! From where I come from in sport coaching, there is dogma at play around the strength and explanatory power from some who would relate to specific theories of action and cognition. I’m skeptical, I’m a bit of a critical realist when it comes to the fallibility of our knowledge, in particular around human functioning. I have a desktop paper in the workings suggesting Active Inference offers a more stable middle ground so perhaps I see this ‘first’ - sometimes I think we miss the woods for the trees though - the perception/action relationship is key for me; how perception happens to play out (direct or indirect) is probably not so important from a coaching/skill development perspective. Thanks for creating a space for these discussions to happen!
Thank you! You reminded me there's a great podcast about sports and affordances...I should try and find that one again. As for your comment, it's true most people have never heard of it. More people in neuroscience are discussing it these days (from my experience) at least.
Enjoyed this Andrea, thanks. I have so many questions though! While the concept of affordances makes sense, I can’t find much in terms of explanatory power within Eco Psyche that contends with prior expectations and belief updating. I was hoping Harry might delve into that.
For example, the go to example of a cup affording grasping etc and to use Harry’s example of infants reaching and grabbing for things- what if we put a cup down and the infant grasps it and picks it up; then on a different occasion we put the cup down but this time weigh it down so it can’t be picked up (too heavy)- the cup still affords grasping but it can’t be lifted - how does Eco Psyche contend with what happens now? If you can share any resources, that would be great!
Hi Jon, thanks for the great comment, good to have to consider it. Off the top of my head, I imagine this might be best approached as a matter of regularities --the body aligns with what is but when there is a deviation (such as the cup suddenly being heavy) attention would be given and in so doing (as that very process) the regularity parameters would be shifting. So this could be modeled as updating priors without any trouble right? In general the the idea and the modeling goes together rather well because the body is itself in alignment with all it is encountering, including its own priors. Here are a few papers that might help with this:
https://mindsonline.philosophyofbrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Orlandi-Minds-2015.pdf
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2732324/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916500323001
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10407410701331934
Thank you for the reply Andria and for the shared papers. I am familiar with some of them and on reading I can't help but see aspects of Active Inference and Sensorimotor Contingency Theory (Enactivism) popping up from time to time. Harry's concept of 'history of attunement' seems to be better described through the concept of Varela, Thompson and Rosche's 'structured coupling'. It's funny that most of the action orientated theories of cognition tend to say the same thing and share commonalities until the P word is mentioned! Thanks again, have a lovely day.
Indeed. I suppose this is why I try to unstick the words and models from the process itself…not sure I am succeeding with that yet haha….but I find many of the same helpful ideas are expressed in different terms and models that often see themselves as rivals. It’s hard not to try and ‘own’ the idea in one theory to the exclusion of others, probably because depending from where we approach it, it will seem to us that something else fit ‘first’ with one or the other. Or we define words (especially the P) differently and end up getting tangled over mismatched definitions… Is this rambling making any sense? Feel free to suggest some sources if you see places where this is communicated more fluidly. And thanks for the input.
You’re making perfect sense and I agree! From where I come from in sport coaching, there is dogma at play around the strength and explanatory power from some who would relate to specific theories of action and cognition. I’m skeptical, I’m a bit of a critical realist when it comes to the fallibility of our knowledge, in particular around human functioning. I have a desktop paper in the workings suggesting Active Inference offers a more stable middle ground so perhaps I see this ‘first’ - sometimes I think we miss the woods for the trees though - the perception/action relationship is key for me; how perception happens to play out (direct or indirect) is probably not so important from a coaching/skill development perspective. Thanks for creating a space for these discussions to happen!
Thanks for sharing. Not many exploring ecological psychology outside of sport right now.
Thank you! You reminded me there's a great podcast about sports and affordances...I should try and find that one again. As for your comment, it's true most people have never heard of it. More people in neuroscience are discussing it these days (from my experience) at least.