My Scholarly Life in Cybernetics

This article narrates how I discovered cybernetics, who inspired me to make the contributions of which I am proud, and the ideas that led me to recognize the importance of understanding the social world we live in as a consequence of what we do in language. It took me some time before I recognized that circular causality and digitalization that made cybernetics the driver of the current revolution toward a computationally autonomous information society had serious limitations. When used to explain human involvements, the mathematics of cybernetics trivializes what we do to each other and blinds us to recognize how cybernetics transformed society. Studying conversations and discourses made me aware of how cybernetic vocabularies, guiding concepts, and computational metaphors were enacted. By contrast to (first- or second-order) cybernetics, I learned that a cybernetics that is practiced in conversations and acknowledges the social consequences of what it generates had to be reflexive. Shifting attention from causal circularities to reflexive circularities opens up huge new areas for exploring socially meaningful contributions and criticizing the epistemologies of mindless discursive practices (e,g., of claiming the superiority of artificial intelligence and the power of computers). Such claims merely entrap their believers into inaction.     

Living and Loving Cybernetics

How we learn to interpret our experiences influences the sorts of experiences we seek. In other words, habits of mind become habits of action. Cybernetics, as a way of thinking, changes how we act. My testimony demonstrates that the appeal of cybernetics remains strong today, for those who are lucky enough to stumble across its beauty, as I was. Cybernetics contributed to the theoretical foundation and conceptualization of my dissertation, and it positively influences my teaching, whether I am teaching cybernetics explicitly or not. While I am fortunate to be able to integrate cybernetics in my work, what delights me most is living it in my every day.     

“Eat your Hamburger!”—“No, I don’t Want to!” Argumentation and Argumentative Development in the Context of Dinner Conversation in Twenty Swedish Families

The aim of the present study was to analyse family dinners as context of argumentation and argumentative development by using a context-sensitive model of basic argumentative structures in every day conversations. The data consisted of 40 argumentative sequences in dinner conversations in twenty Swedish families with children aged 7 to 17 years. The families were divided in two groups depending on the children's ages (10–11 years with younger siblings and 10–12 years with older siblings). The model revealed characteristic structures of argumentation appearing as co-text and suggested differences between family groups depending on contextual factors such as age of the children. The groups of older children produced longer argumentative sequences, more exchanges per sequence and higher rate of turns. The older children also engaged in non-instrumental deliberations and disputations significantly more often and they performed more elaborated expansions (through a higher quantity of backing arguments). The groups of younger children on the other hand were more often involved in negotiations on topics relevant in the immediate context. Less expected was, however, the lack of more complex and varied arguments, even in the groups of older children.     

重视手术委托知情同意 预防小儿外科医疗纠纷

造成小儿外科医疗纠纷的重要因素是医患沟通不够、缺乏信任和理解。知情同意是加强医患沟通和信任的重要方式。深入理解并实现患儿及家属的知情同意权,重视和做好手术委托知情同意书的签署,合理履行告知说明义务,让家属在充分知情基础上做出自主的理性的选择,可缓解紧张的医患关系,减少医疗纠纷的发生。     

Formative Evaluation of a Tabletop Display Meant to Orient Casual Conversation

In this paper, we introduce a novel type of persuasive system aimed at orienting a group conversation in a casual setting. The system is based on a tabletop display complemented by a limited speech recognition system (a word spotter). It affects group behavior indirectly by presenting on the shared interface contextually appropriate visual material in a way reminiscent of the tradition of advertising: attention-catching, evocative, and cognitively stimulating. The system is meant to be used in the context of a museum visit. The purpose is to influence a group of friends so that they discuss their museum experience, while sitting at the museum café after the visit. Results show the system in the current version has a moderate effect on group behavior and provide indications for promising improvements.     

An application of the matching law to social dynamics

Using a procedure similar to the one described by Conger and Killeen (1974), we evaluated levels of attending for 25 college students who participated in either a 20-min (n = 12) or 30-min (n = 13) discussion on juvenile delinquency. Confederates delivered statements of agreement (e.g., "I agree with that point") according to independent variable-interval schedules. Pooled results were evaluated using three generalized formulations of the matching law, and showed that matching was more likely during the first 5 min of the discussion than during the last 5 min. Individual data for 7 of 9 participants were better described by the generalized response-rate matching equation than by the generalized time-allocation matching equation when response allocation was characterized in terms of frequency rather than duration.     

A Conversation Analysis of the ‘Acquiescence’ of People with Learning Disabilities

Contrary to received wisdom, ‘acquiescence bias’ in the responses of people with learning disabilities to questioning is not a simple phenomenon, and certainly not one to be laid at the door solely of people with learning disabilities themselves. Rather, it is probably an artefact of the conversational organization of interviews as tests. Analysis of Quality of Life assessment interviews show, we argue, that there is probably no uniform ‘acquiescent’ motivation which accounts for all inconsistencies and agreements that might be produced under such circumstances. Rather, the interview's logic produces a range of pseudo-acquiescent responses in the face of interviewers reformulations, and their pursuit of plausible and acceptable answers. There is also evidence of ‘anti-acquiescence’, in which respondents resist pressure to change their answers. We conclude that the traditional notion of submissive, willing-to-please acquiescence is probably unsustainable on current evidence, and ought to be replaced by a more respectful account of the linguistic and interpersonal competence of people with learning disabilities.