Abstract

§1 I present a novel model for reasoning about human behavior and consider it in the context of the social networking website Facebook. Facebook (www.facebook.com) represents a new development in the history of human social interaction. It enables connected individuals to increase familiarity. It is the most effective^note:1 representative of a new breed of Internet application in which familiarity is the new currency.

§3 The microblogging service Twitter (www.twitter.com) is another example of such an application.

§4 I suggest new ways of reasoning about this behavior that rely upon the development of foundational theories.

§5 I am not a psychologist. However, I am interested in systematic reasoning about the behavior of organisms. My primary interests are best described as the foundations of logic and apprehension. In this case “apprehension” refers to the scientific study of how organisms apprehend the world. By participating as a guest in a psychology class at Stanford University^note:2I was placed in an environment that had compatible goals and a practical example to study. The class introduced methodologies in the discipline of psychology.

§7 It is not the goal of this paper to criticize the methodologies used in the class. Rather, it is to explore how the development of biophysically compatible foundational theories can be applied to human behavior.

Motivations

Why do this?

§8 I develop theories of behavior from first principles. This foundation is necessarily constructed upon an understanding of the biophysics involved: the nature of sense and motility constituting the basis of all behavior in species. The ultimate goal of my work is the formalization of such theories so that they can be broadly applied.

§9 It is beneficial to the development of these theories to apply them as early as possible to the range of behaviors they seek to explain. To illustrate, the behaviors that interest me include the responses of bacteria in glucose gradients, the propagation of nesting behavior in animals, and the interaction behaviors of our species associated with the development of social order and productivity. This is not to suggest any gross equivalence between the behavior of our species and the behavior of simpler organisms, but simply to observe that all such behaviors are the product of natural laws.

§10 This is contrary to the position taken by many emergence theorists, who apparently believe that such behavior is the product of magic. That is, we are increasingly hearing claims that such behavior is not predictable or determined by natural laws.^{(ref.1)(ref.2)}

The Psychology of Facebook

The platform for the report.

§11 I participated as an invited guest in BJ Fogg's class entitled “The Psychology of Facebook” at Stanford University during the Spring semester of 2008. This class is recorded in a variety of formats on the Internet and video and text trails of the unfolding of the class are readily available for study.

§12 Students in the class offered qualitative analysis of the variety of mechanisms available for use on Facebook and attempted to correlate these mechanisms to some behavior, with the ultimate goal of dissecting what BJ Fogg identifies as “Persuasion.”

Persuasion

The declared objective of the class.

§13 The declared objective of the class was twofold: to introduce and explore the subject of persuasion in general, and to elevate the social status of students by persuading members of industry, the public and, perhaps, the individual students themselves, that they are experts on a particular aspect of the psychology of Facebook. The general message here is that specialization equals perceived expertise.

§14 What exactly is “persuasion” in the context of this class?

§15 Fogg taught the class and is apparently an expert on persuasion; it is his declared specialization. In 2003 he published a book entitled Persuasion Technology: Using Computers to Change What We think And Do^(ref.3) and he is a professor at Stanford University where he runs the Persuasion Technology Lab at CSLI^note:3. In his book Fogg defines persuasion as “an attempt to change behaviors and attitudes.”

§17 I take Fogg's use of the term “attitudes” simply to refer to the potential of an individual to behave in a particular way. A change in attitude is therefore a change in the probability that an individual will behave one way rather than another.

§18 Indeed, from a rigorous perspective, Fogg and the class study the behavior of our species and the probability that individuals will behave in one way rather than another, and when they speak of “persuasion” they are simply referring to the effects that interactions within the social network have upon these probabilities. The goal of persuasion is then, in this context, to informally construct a model of these interactions and to show how modifications of these open channels of communication between individuals on Facebook affect social outcomes.

§19 In the rest of this paper I will simply identify the factors that go into building such a model using the foundational theories that I am developing elsewhere^(ref.4). The actual construction and rigorous treatment of such a model requires a more extensive and systematic account and is outside the scope of this paper. My purpose here is only to illustrate, for the general reader, how such a model may be constructed.

Reasoning About Persuasion on Facebook

How to build models of persuasion.

§20 There has been much research into reasoning with and about probabilities and inductive logic; the logic of inferring future events from past record. We will not elaborate upon them here.^{(ref.5)(ref.6)} My goal is simply to suggest a method of rigorous reasoning about persuasion that can apply these techniques: where persuasion is defined as the actions necessary to increase the probability that one behavior will occur rather than another in the context of Facebook and its functionality at the time of writing.

§21 In the following I will introduce concepts that enable us to identify conventions embodied by individuals and to characterize the probability determined by these conventions that a particular behavior will occur, in a range of exhibited behaviors, when an individual apprehends a mark.

§22 All that would appear to be required to change behaviors is that you identify which individuals adopt a target behavior and the marks that caused them to do so. By applying those same marks to others that share the same conventions you increase the probability of the target behavior.

§23 The marks we are considering here are the elements of Facebook. The conventions are simply user behaviors on Facebook. It is important to note that both of these are quantifiable and can be measured. We essentially ask to what degree it is possible to identify conventions on Facebook to enable the above model.

Semeiotics

General theories of signs.

§24 Let's begin with a few fundamentals that give us a general framework for thinking about behaviors and means of quantifying them so that we can apply them to Facebook.

§25 My model is a semeiotic one. Semeiotics, by my definition, is the study of the foundations of logic and apprehension. It has a broad scope that encompasses both the use and form of mathematical logic and social behaviors like those that appear on Facebook.

§26 A semeiotic model deals with “signs.” Signs, for our purposes here, are simply individuated experiences of any kind. The subjects of signs are “marks .” Whenever I speak of a mark I include reference to complex marks, marks that are composed of marks.

§27 So, from the point of view of a semeiotic model, the elements of a Facebook profile, news feed or application are marks that produce signs in the individuals apprehending them. Our goal is to reason about the behavior of individuals apprehending the marks of Facebook.

§28 The term “meaning” will, no doubt, appear in the minds of many readers at this point. Ironically, the notion is rarely used with any clarity (ask your neighbor what it means to mean something). Let's fix that. For our purposes, the meaning of a mark is precisely the behavior that it produces in its apprehension,^{(ref.7)note:4} and this behavior includes the embodied behaviors that produce references and relations. Thus, a mark has precisely the same meaning for individuals in which it produces precisely the same behavior (what this actually refers to in biological terms we leave unstated here). Importantly, some portion of this behavior is recorded on Facebook.

§30 This gives us a way to reason in conventional terms about what people mean and, more generally, it enables us to reason about conventions. A convention is simply the uniformity of behavior produced by a particular mark. So, we can now say, for example, that the profile image on a Facebook profile is a mark and that individuals that share a response to that imagery share conventions.^note:5

§32 This provides a simple measure that enables us to categorize friends on Facebook. If two friends behave in the same way to a modification of any element in a Facebook profile then they share conventions to some degree. To determine the full degree to which any group share conventions will obviously require more than one data point.

Applied Semeiotics

Using the simple model.

§33 This is a pretty simple model. How useful is what we have so far toward the goal of understanding behavior, persuasion and identifying persuasive techniques? What can we say about Facebook? Clearly, if we were able to observe all the responses of individuals viewing a particular mark we would be able to group them into categories of individuals that share the same conventions.

§34 Let's think of some examples.

§35 We could perhaps place an image of our favorite emblematic personality in the profile picture and measure the number of friends we lose and the number that we gain as a result, the number that make comments of a certain kind and so forth. Thus the friending process is a behavior that reflects the conventions held by the individuals joining and leaving in response to the mark. You can try this out by changing your profile image to one of Adolf Hilter, Ghandi or Karl Marx, for example, and measuring the behavioral responses among your existing friends and the new friends you acquire. Those having similar responses share conventions, at least to the extent that they are observable and relate to the particular mark.

§36 Considered use of this example may provide a useful mechanism for filtering a friends list.

§37 This model enables us to identify which individuals in a group share conventions. As noted, you need more than one data point. Conducting experiments of this kind, gathering extensive data, you can build a landscape of the conventions held by any given population. It should be clear that if you are Facebook Inc., or any entity with monolithic access to social data, you have access to such data and can conduct such experiments.

§38 When you have a way to determine which individuals share conventions, and privileged access to behavioral data, you can construct a useful set of predictive categories. Comprehensive data within those categories of convention enables broad predictions and the ability to manipulate marks will enable the management of a society.

§39 What are the predictions that such categories enable?

§40 Individuals sharing conventions have a high probability of behaving in the same manner when exposed to a given mark. If you want an individual to respond in a particular way, then the simplest thing to do is to identify individuals in the same convention category that exhibited the desired behavior and apply the marks that produced that behavior to the individual you seek to “persuade.”

§41 Therefore, once you have assembled individuals into these categories of convention only a little data is required to enable you to change the behavior of any and all individuals in that category.

Pragmatic Solutions to Persuasion

Keeping it simple.

§42 This is all pretty simple stuff and we should not be surprised that technologists have tried to exploit ideas like this.

§43 The notion of “collaborative filtering” tends, as a practical matter, to be based on readily accessible statistics, like Amazon's: “those that bought A also bought B.”

§44 Let's briefly consider what is going on here in our terms because we see this approach used by a number of Facebook applications. The purchase by any individual of two products is a vote for the relationship between those products as marks and this is a useful fact. It reflects convention if it is a part of broader behavior but its use is typically a pragmatic discovery. Such discoveries have obviously been valuable to Amazon.

§45 A variety of web services have had mixed results with techniques that attempt to apply probability techniques of the kind I have referred to. Often these techniques claim to possess some form of “artificial intelligence” and they attempt to solve persuasion problems. Simply put, by showing you some mark, for example placing an element in your Facebook news feed, they seek to produce some behavior.

§46 They fail, but the question is why do they fail and can you, with your intelligence, do any better? Are there marks that you can put into your news feed that will produce some desired behavior in those apprehending them? If you can succeed where the probability models fail, what enables you to succeed?

§47 The experience of the services that try to apply advanced probability techniques discover that the data they collect is simply incomplete. They cannot know, for example, about the books that you buy at other locations online or offline. So, even if they succeed in making offers that are 100% relevant, making offers that are redundant is a problem if the offers actually make claims about how smart they are, about the “intelligence” of the selection. An Internet service that makes intelligence claims about redundant offers (offers that would interest you if only they had not already been fulfilled) is viewed negatively and this negativity propagates to the entire service. In the worst case, a service that makes intelligence claims and makes offers that are relevant anything less than 100% of the time is considered generally “stupid” regardless of the fact that it is right most of the time. ^note:6

§49 So, even though we have a compelling theory, we are limited in our ability to collect the full range of data required for it to be useful as a persuasion tool. There are practical matters that limit what we know and limit the application of the theory. It remains an open question as to whether these are hard limits.

§50 The simple pragmatic “those that bought/liked A also bought/liked B,” used by many Facebook applications, is not the product of a foundational theory. It is a pragmatic discovery. It makes no claim to intelligence, it is simple, informative, and allows the acceptance of redundancy. In this case redundant offers become affirming experiences. We say “Oh yes, I have that book and if people that bought that book bought this book too, then this book is one that is useful to me!” In addition, this response encourages you to consider those other offered books that are not familiar.

A General Theory of Behavior

Extending the model.

§51 What can we do with the minimum data that can be collected? How are our offers (the marks we use to evoke desired behavior) best presented to be effective? We are looking for two things: the target behaviors to which the theory can be applied, and why certain applications of it will be ineffective.

§52 What we need is a general theory of behavior that will give us a more complete framework. Using this framework we may be able to identify reliable and futile mechanisms of “persuasion.”

§53 While a semeiotic model deals with the operation of individual sentient entities (any kind of organism, including Facebook users), we need a more general way to consider the behavior of sentient entities in groups. I call such theories “Natural Ethics.” Natural Ethics deals with the inevitable behaviors of sentient entities in groups (it deals with what they will do, not with what they should do). Facebook users are such a group.

§54 Natural Ethics have two components: genetic disposition and convention. We discussed convention earlier, now let's consider the dispositions of individuals that are defined solely by who they are physically and, in particular, ask which of these dispositions are reflected in behavior on Facebook.

§55 There are a couple of obvious candidates, so for the sake of brevity let's focus our attention upon them. They are:

• Mating, more generally reproduction and raising children.
• Eating, more generally sustaining ourselves physically.

§56 These are the two indisputable genetic dispositions. We can potentially add more (note that I have said nothing about social behavior yet) but let's keep it simple.

§57 I will take the position that in the absence of convention the behavior of all organisms is inevitable, determined by their physical form in the environment in which they find themselves.

§58 This position always seems to raise the question of “free-will,” so for clarity our definition of free will is simply the navigation of ignorance. I take the position that if we always knew the right thing to do then there is no doubt that we would do it (and this applies regardless of a hesitant disposition. I am referring to an absolute knowing of “the right thing”, as certain as any natural law). Our choices are determined by the behavioral model I have described: genetic disposition mitigated by convention.

§59 Therefore, it is reasonable to anticipate that, in the absence of convention, organisms will mate and eat, or more generally, they will reproduce and sustain themselves.

§60 How are these dispositions manifest on Facebook?

§61 The most obvious genetic disposition is, perhaps, the mating disposition which is reflected in the range of interactions around reproductive behavior. But we also find behavior designed to meet the eating disposition. The outcomes then, from the point of view of genetic disposition only, that conventions present on Facebook potentially mediate are:

• Dinner
• Income
• Sex
• Childbirth
• Marriage

§62 Without convention we can reasonably assume that these dispositions prevail and the drive for them without convention is determined only by the degree to which these needs are currently met by the environment.

§63 However, Facebook, like all media, is a vehicle for convention only. It does not fulfill these dispositions directly. So to speak about the behavior surrounding Facebook we have to ask what role convention plays in the characterization of these dispositions.

§64 Quite simply, in a general theory of organism behavior, conventions (as we have defined them in the foregoing) mitigate genetic dispositions. “Mitigation” here refers to the increase or decrease in the behavioral effect of these natural dispositions, in the range of behaviors that are the possible products of the disposition. Conventions do not bring new behaviors into the world. They only modify behaviors that are the product of genetic dispositions, behaviors associated simply with biological structures in their environment.

Familiarity

The role of the familiar and how we deal with that which is not familiar.

§65 In terms of Facebook then, individuals respond as they would to any other mark in their interaction with the world. Facebook is more effective than a traditional form of communication, say by posted letter, because it provides a vehicle for rich media and interaction mechanisms that are immediate and reflect interaction behavior between proximate individuals in the world. This rich media increases our familiarity with their subject.

§66 It will be argued, of course, that other services provide rich media and interaction mechanisms, so what is different about Facebook that enabled its explosive and wide adoption?

§67 Fogg and others note correctly that Facebook has provided an environment of “trust” by enabling transparency and eliminating anonymity. This is important because it more accurately reflects the familiarity protocols of the environment that we are familiar with. That environment of trust arises from the greater familiarity that Facebook enables.

§68 Familiarity is a natural property of “semeiosis”, which for our purposes here we will simply define as the operation of the mind. Familiarity is simply the degree to which we have adopted a behavior in response to a mark.^note:7 This is initialized by the innate familiarity to the environment provided by genetic disposition and modified by convention.

§70 We know intuitively how to deal with that which is familiar, by definition. We rely upon social convention to help us deal with that which is not familiar. In this case, the marks of convention identify categories that we become familiar with, and those categories modify our behavior in the variety of circumstances that involve that which is not familiar.

§71 So, for example, we trust strangers to treat us in times of crisis because they are identified by the mark “Doctor” or “Nurse.” We select strangers to attend to our teeth and teach our children, all by societal conventions, marks that help us deal with individuals whose services we need but who are in all other respects unknown to us.

§72 The same dynamics apply on Facebook. Facebook enables us to reinforce our familiarity with those we are already familiar with. And, as Fogg notes, it enables us to strengthen our familiarity with those we are only weakly familiar with. Since we rely upon familiarity and conventions that allow us to navigate that which is not familiar, Facebook's environment as far as it ensures transparency and eliminates anonymity is a good and valuable social tool.

§73 This mechanism of social convention provides social animals such as our species with extraordinary advantages.

Navigating the Unfamiliar

Things to watch out for.

§74 However, these same mechanisms provide a source of great risk.

§75 The risks, of course, rest on any mechanism provided by Facebook (or, indeed, any service whatsoever) that would undermine our ability to rely upon the conventions that enable us to navigate the unfamiliar.

§76 Such conventions are undermined when events occur that force individuals to reassess their response to a mark. In these circumstances they will pass from probabilistic behavior to random behavior when the mark appears or, if other conventions were previously embodied, they will revert to them. Eventually new conventions may be established.

§77 Imagine this situation in a non-virtual environment. You arrive at a party and there are many people there that will not tell you their real name. A few claim to be doctors and nurses, priests and elected officials. If you are a conventional Westerner you won't be able to help yourself. You will trust qualified individuals and distrust the anonymous individuals. Such are our conventions and our innate dispositions.

§78 However, the true situation at this party is that the people that are anonymous are simply protecting themselves and have something important to tell you. The qualified individuals are imposters. They could, of course, all be imposters, conflicting interest groups battling for your behavior when you apprehend certain marks.

§79 Before the Internet it was the convention that anonymity was the haven of last resort for people at risk. Individuals claimed anonymity only as a cloak of protection for their safety and that of their families. It enabled them to say what could not be said otherwise. It enabled them to alert us to betrayal.

§80 When the cloak of anonymity is abused it becomes impossible to detect the sincere alert to danger and it denies protection to those that truly need it.

§81 Wikipedia is an example of the dangers. It is impossible to determine the real identity of contributors and therefore their conflicts of interest and the true merit of their contributions. Wikipedia is useful at points in its uncertain history and this lulls us into a false sense of security. The sources have neither the advantage of being familiar, nor attributable conventions that would allow us to trust the unfamiliar source.

§82 Today the great strength of the Facebook model is that it provides a relatively secure environment for identity - people are who they say they are. This encourages individuals to strengthen their familiarity with each other. This is what Fogg is referring to when he speaks of an environment of trust.

§83 It should be obvious that it takes a lot to undermine a convention and that we place great value upon familiarity.

§84 Someone that poses as a qualified dentist and later turns out to be qualified as a car mechanic is unlikely to be trusted to care for your teeth again, no matter how good a job they actually do on your teeth. But this is unlikely to stop you from seeking out a new dentist on the same basis as you used to select the first. Conversely, if you become sufficiently familiar with the car mechanic then the strength of familiarity allows you to reject convention and allow the car mechanic to continue to treat your teeth.

§85 We all know how to deal with that which is familiar, by definition. Facebook makes familiarity the new currency. You are socially richer and more productive in that society the more you have of it. If you are not at all familiar then you are totally dependent upon convention. If you are familiar you will have less dependence upon convention. People familiar with you are more easily persuaded, and the converse is true.

§86 Our dependency upon familiarity and conventions for managing that which is not familiar makes us vulnerable in environments where convention can be undermined and familiarity falsely acquired. Celebrity, incidentally, is simply the product of familiarity. The power of familiarity is readily seen. For example, the policies and performance of Arnold Schwarzenegger are irrelevant. This is limited to within some bounds that essentially require that Schwarzenegger maintains familiar behaviors. His broad familiarity then makes his re-election as California's Governor simply inevitable. To beat Schwarzenegger has nothing to do with policies. It simply requires a candidate that is more familiar or uncharacteristic behavior on the part of Schwarzenegger.

Conclusion

§87 I introduced foundational theories of behavior and applied them to Facebook as a medium of social interaction. I observed that the primary strength of Facebook, and this may be the cause of its success, is that it enables the currency of familiarity and its use.

§88 Specifically, I first described a simple model of behavior: individuals act in response to marks. I then generalized this idea to enable the identification of convention as the uniformity of responses to marks in groups of individuals. I then noted that, by definition, we know how to deal with that which is familiar and that we rely upon convention to know how to deal with that which is unfamiliar.

§89 According to this model Facebook's advantage is that it enables the strengthening of familiarity. That, in turn, strengthens social interactions and enables effective persuasion.

§90 It should also be clear that by the same mechanisms it reduces a dependence upon convention for those rich with the currency of familiarity. The establishment of “norms” in psychological terms, “conventions” in mine, by groups of familiar individuals assists in the navigation of that which is not familiar.

§91 I noted that the measurable outcomes from interaction through Facebook include dinner and the birth of a child. These are, of course, measurable outcomes of any social environment and under any circumstances (by definition) satisfying and productive social environments have improved probability of these outcomes. They will occur where they would not otherwise have occurred.

§92 We have suggested that with broad and sufficient historical data it is possible to identify what you need to modify on your Facebook profile to achieve these outcomes. And therein, it would appear, lies the rub and the discovery of pragmatic solutions prevail.

§93 Currently Facebook inserts advertising into my news feed for all kinds of Wedding related products. This is, no doubt, because my profile discloses that I recently became engaged. But the offers are redundant, irrelevant and thus annoying. I am not shopping for Wedding services and the negativity these adverts evoke reflects upon the Facebook service as a whole. My declaration of engagement on Facebook cannot be taken in isolation and Facebook has not identified my conventions. If they had, they would know not to present me with this advertising.

♦

End Notes

^note:1 As measured by its growth and commercial success.

^note:2 The author participated as an invited guest in the Spring 2008 semester of BJ Fogg's class entitled “The Psychology of Facebook.”

^note:3 The Center for the Study of Language and Information.

^note:4 This view is a positive interpretation of Charles Sanders Peirce's (1839-1911) Pragmatic Maxim which simply states that to identify meaning look for changes in the world.

^note:5 We, as a culture, use the notion of “meaning” as a way of speaking about the behavior associated with marks. We say “What does this mean?” or “What do you mean by that?” In all cases when we speak of meaning, though it may not be immediately obvious, we are speaking about the behavior associated with a mark, the behavior a mark produces in its apprehension. We would do better to say “What conventional behavior does this mark suggest?” or “When you exhibit that behavior what response do you expect?” Some readers might object that this does not allow us to reason about relations or references but this is not the case. Both are a behavior embodied in the engineering of sentience and they are the products of apprehending marks.

^note:6 These observation are the product of the author's experience with users while building such services for RCA, Microsoft, Oracle, and others.

^note:7 Charles Sanders Peirce would have referred to this behavior as “habit.”

Concepts

genetic disposition: I am referring to the inevitable behavior of an organism in its environment as determined by its physical structure which, as we know, is a function of genetics.

inevitable: I define “inevitable behavior” as behavior that is the product of the engineering of sentience. It differs from “deterministic behavior” only so far as the engineering of stars differs from the engineering of organisms. I will not go into the full reasons here why I draw such a distinction but it should be clear that there are, in fact, such distinctions at least as far as it is evidenced by the engineering of organisms by genetics.

mark: The subject of a sign.

motility: “Spontaneous” physiological behavior (in my model, the product of the same biological engineering as sense).

Natural Ethics: The inevitable behavior of sentient organisms in groups defined by genetic disposition mitigated by convention.

semeiosis: The operation of “the mind,” the mechanics of apprehension, of sign processing and response, of sense and motility

sign: An individuated experience.

References

Carnap, Rudolf. The Logical Foundations of Probability. The University of Chicago Press (1962). ISBN:. ^(ref:5)

Ericsson-Zenith, Steven. Explaining Experience in Nature: The Foundations of Logic and Apprehension. IN PREPARATION (2008). ^(ref:4)

Fogg, B.J.. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change what We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann (2003). ISBN:1558606432. ^(ref:3)

Jeffrey, Richard C.. Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability. University of California Press, [Vol.II] (1980). ISBN:0-520-0326-6. ^(ref:6)

Kauffman, Stuart. Reinventing The Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion. Basic Books (2008). ISBN:0465003001. ^(ref:1)

Peirce, Charles Sanders. The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce: Pragmaticism. Belknap Press, Harvard, [Vol.V] (1931). ^(ref:7)

Wolfram, Stephen. A New Kind Of Science. (2001). ISBN:1579550088. ^(ref:2)