Thanks for rewriting this. It’s clearer— the old posts I either didn’t understand or found them tautological.
You have examples of the effect of “liking/admiring”, so I have a pretty clear understanding of what you’re getting at. But you didn’t say anything about the causes. What are the business rules in the steering system by which it is applied?
Five minutes of thought suggests “increase the valence of people who demonstrate skill superior to the average” and “decrease the valence of those who hurt you” and “increase the valence of those who incur a cost to your benefit.” But it’s debatable whether those notions are simple enough to be business rules built into the hypothalamus.
What are the business rules in the steering system by which it is applied?
I’m not aware of anything special—just the same general idea as in §2.5. Valence transfers from concepts to other concepts when they immediately (within a fraction of a second) follow each other, and also, valence can come from innate drives.
I think all your examples are plausibly consistent with that kind of thing. For example:
If Beth has negative valence on getting punched (as is very common!), and then Alice punches Beth, then in Beth’s brain (as she replays the memory over and over), she’s thinking about Alice, and then a fraction of a second later she’s thinking about getting punched by Alice; and then the negative valence of the latter will transfer over to Alice by TD learning (as in §2.5).
If Beth has (for some reason) previously come to believe that skateboarding is really cool (positive valence), then Alice can get some liking / admiration by being a good skateboarder. The story would be: in Beth’s brain, she’s sometimes thinking about Alice and then a fraction of a second later she’s thinking about “skillful skateboarding”, and so some of the preexisting positive valence on good skateboarding will transfer over to Alice by TD learning (as in §2.5).
If Beth likes getting gifts, and Alice gives her a gift … etc.
The valence-sharing mechanism accounts for the effectiveness of television advertising that makes no rational sense. An ad shows happy laughing young beautiful people on a beach, enjoying Pedro’s Tortilla Chips, with no logical connection. Show the ad 100 times and the positive valence of happy laughing young beautiful beach people transfers over to Pedro’s Tortilla Chips. Then next time you’re in the store you reach for Pedro’s without knowing why.
Portions of the social purpose of the ”like/admire” system could be replaced by rational negotiation. If we were soulless, we would note who is particularly good to affiliate with, and then agree with them that you will help each other as needed. But that assumes the existence of language, which is possibly no more than 50,000 years old. The like/admire system is much older than that: my dogs love me, and are loyal and obedient. Or, to be precise, they act out an emotion toward me that looks homologous to the human like/admire feeling.
Thanks for rewriting this. It’s clearer— the old posts I either didn’t understand or found them tautological.
You have examples of the effect of “liking/admiring”, so I have a pretty clear understanding of what you’re getting at. But you didn’t say anything about the causes. What are the business rules in the steering system by which it is applied?
Five minutes of thought suggests “increase the valence of people who demonstrate skill superior to the average” and “decrease the valence of those who hurt you” and “increase the valence of those who incur a cost to your benefit.” But it’s debatable whether those notions are simple enough to be business rules built into the hypothalamus.
Thanks for the kind words!
I’m not aware of anything special—just the same general idea as in §2.5. Valence transfers from concepts to other concepts when they immediately (within a fraction of a second) follow each other, and also, valence can come from innate drives.
I think all your examples are plausibly consistent with that kind of thing. For example:
If Beth has negative valence on getting punched (as is very common!), and then Alice punches Beth, then in Beth’s brain (as she replays the memory over and over), she’s thinking about Alice, and then a fraction of a second later she’s thinking about getting punched by Alice; and then the negative valence of the latter will transfer over to Alice by TD learning (as in §2.5).
If Beth has (for some reason) previously come to believe that skateboarding is really cool (positive valence), then Alice can get some liking / admiration by being a good skateboarder. The story would be: in Beth’s brain, she’s sometimes thinking about Alice and then a fraction of a second later she’s thinking about “skillful skateboarding”, and so some of the preexisting positive valence on good skateboarding will transfer over to Alice by TD learning (as in §2.5).
If Beth likes getting gifts, and Alice gives her a gift … etc.
Quite right.
The valence-sharing mechanism accounts for the effectiveness of television advertising that makes no rational sense. An ad shows happy laughing young beautiful people on a beach, enjoying Pedro’s Tortilla Chips, with no logical connection. Show the ad 100 times and the positive valence of happy laughing young beautiful beach people transfers over to Pedro’s Tortilla Chips. Then next time you’re in the store you reach for Pedro’s without knowing why.
Portions of the social purpose of the ”like/admire” system could be replaced by rational negotiation. If we were soulless, we would note who is particularly good to affiliate with, and then agree with them that you will help each other as needed. But that assumes the existence of language, which is possibly no more than 50,000 years old. The like/admire system is much older than that: my dogs love me, and are loyal and obedient. Or, to be precise, they act out an emotion toward me that looks homologous to the human like/admire feeling.