soul-frame/research/social-cognition/co-adaptive-model-building.md
tegwick 807d6b17f6 Complete Phase II interaction (SOUL-WP-0003)
Map model-based mind, co-adaptive social cognition, and recognition/social
Beinghood into instruments and workstream notes. Support H3/H4/H7, judge TE-09,
write phase-ii-interaction-synthesis.md, finish SOUL-WP-0003, and mark
SOUL-WP-0004 ready.
2026-08-12 01:21:49 +02:00

4.1 KiB
Raw Blame History

Co-Adaptive Model Building — Social Cognition Map (Phase II)

Workplan: SOUL-WP-0003-T02
Date: 2026-08-12
Primary research body: research/foundations/Research Note 006 — Social Mind and Co-Adaptive Model Building.md


1. Working definition (RN-006)

Co-Adaptive Model Building is the recurrent process through which two or more Beings update action-guiding models of themselves, one another, their relationships, and their shared situation—potentially including bounded models of one another's models—while actions generated from those models alter the interaction process and thereby create the evidence for subsequent updates.

Not: mere exchange or synchronization of identical models.
Not: private Theory of Mind alone.


2. Tradition map

Tradition Key sources Soul Frame uptake
Theory of Mind Premack & Woodruff 1978 Other-Model (SM3)
Inverse planning Baker, Saxe & Tenenbaum 2009; Shum et al. 2019 Computational other-modeling
Symbolic interaction Mead 1934 Reflected-Self; Generalized Social Model
Dialogue / alignment Pickering & Garrod 2004 Interactive co-adaptation mechanisms
Common ground Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs 1986; Clark & Brennan 1991 SM7 Common-Ground Model
Shared intentionality Tomasello et al. 2005; Bratman 1992 Strong form of cooperation — not definition of Social Mind
Joint action Sebanz et al. 2006 Coordination without full mental-state identity
Participatory sense-making De Jaegher & Di Paolo 2007, 2010 Interaction process as constitutive
Second-person neuroscience Schilbach et al. 2013 Interaction-centered social cognition
Recursive multi-agent Gmytrasiewicz & Doshi 2005 (I-POMDP) Formal recursion bounds
Relational schemas Fiske 1992 Relationship Model (SM5) types

3. Social Mind model families (SM1SM8)

ID Model Question
SM1 World What is the shared environment?
SM2 Self What am I?
SM3 Other What is B?
SM4 Reflected-Self What does B model about me?
SM5 Relationship What is A↔B?
SM6 Shared Situation What is happening between us now?
SM7 Common Ground What do we sufficiently share?
SM8 Generalized Social Roles, norms, institutions, community

A Social Mind is a coupled system of these, not a single “user model.”


4. Distinctions that must not collapse

Concept Relation to co-adaptation
Model equality Same model contents — stronger than needed
Model alignment Compatible enough for coordination
Common ground Mutual acceptance for current purposes
Shared intentionality Joint goals/commitments — special case
Recognition Standing as counterpart — may begin before deep co-adaptation

Agreement and cooperation are possible outcomes, not definitional requirements of co-adaptive model building (conflict and deception are also co-adaptive).


5. H4 assessment

H4: Persistent interaction produces recursively adapting models of self, other, and relationship.

Support Mead; alignment; common ground; participatory sense-making; inverse planning; I-POMDP recursion; RN-006 loop
Conflict Purely individualistic ToM that treats interaction as mere input; strong “no representation” enactivism if “model” is read narrowly
Evidence strength moderate → strong for the co-adaptation thesis as synthesis
Status supported (Phase II)

Refinement: co-adaptation is joint evolution through interaction, and models can be self-confirming or self-defeating because they change the evidence stream.


6. TE implications

  • TE-01 Stateless Agent: partner may co-adapt as if continuous; co-adaptation on one side does not create diachronic Beinghood on the other.
  • TE-06 The Mask: multiple Personae require differentiated Relationship and Reflected-Self models per counterpart.
  • TE-09 Unrecognized Intelligence: co-adaptation may not start until intentional recognition begins; systemic individuality can precede social modeling.