Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9004548" data-attributes="member: 71699">This was an interesting post and changed my mind on one point. So that I now have a model to put forward. First of all, I now feel it works well to think of the following as preexisting human behaviours or capacities -<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Capacity to form and modify rules</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Capacity to follow rules</li> </ol>You'll notice that I haven't listed interpretation. There are complexities that I believe don't obstruct what I'll go on to say, and I'm willing to unpack those if they turn out to matter. Elsewhere, I have used the construct that for a rule R there is a Z which is the rule as interpreted, and I have that in mind that here.1. and 2. then fit very neatly with existing theory on regulatory and constitutive rules, which is to say that my rule N. is a regulatory rule that limits the preexisting ability to form and modify rules, and rule 0. is a regulatory rule that assigns it.So now as to Baker's claim about moment-to-moment acceptance. To address this, I propose that there is a C which is the commitment to follow a rule. C isn't a binary absolute, but rather a weight, disposition, tendency or propensity: the likelihood that the rule-follower will compy with the rule. (Note that like other models of cognition, factors like C are artifacts of the construct; chosen for their correlation to behaviour. Thus they are normally testable.)At any moment when my compliance with a rule is tested (do I accept it or not) that is a test of my C in respect of that rule. Where I have a strong commitment to following the rule (a high value for C) I am more likely to follow it than not follow it, etc. Thus it can properly be said that rule-following is enacted as moment-to-moment acceptance, and that the acceptance itself is in conformance with Cs. So that it can also be said that earlier events that change C will form probability-deltas to the moment-to-moment acceptance relative to what would be predicted in their absence.A GM securing vocal pre-agreement to rule 0 is an example of such an event. Reading a written rule and a written principle that it should be followed is another such event. Making oneself subject to the authority of an institution, such as to the organisers of a tournament, is yet another. And so on.C is always referred to in determining rule acceptance in the moment. One way to picture C is as a die roll made in the moment, with modifiers, whose result determines if the rule will be followed. So that it is true that we will only find out if a rule is accepted in the moment, and it is true that we can say something about what modifiers are in play (the strength of C). That successfully explains that written rules and principles, commitments to following them, and so on, will matter to acceptance in the moment. (NB: I've simplied my construct for C for the sake of this discussion.)</blockquote>

Verification