[Fis] Photonic Communications and Information Encoding in Biological Systems

[John Prpic]

Hello Everyone,I'm rather new to the FIS list, and I've been following the conversations quietly with immense interest for a few months now. It goes without saying that this space produces some very fascinating discourse, and I'm very glad that Raquel has introduced me to the forum! Nonetheless, I ran across this interesting work today, and I thought that it may be interesting for the group to discuss...Have a look here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.4134v1.pdfDoes this work potentially have any impact on some of the recent FIS conversations? Best,John-- John Prpic MBAPhD Student - SFUPMPerspectives Research TeamTCOS Lab - Genome Canada___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 575, Issue 7

[John Prpic]

Hi Raquel,

Nice work with this, very interesting!
I'm not sure if you remember, but we met at your poster at AAAS in Vancouver a 
little while back :) 

My research focus is predominantly on the IT side of things, though of course 
that also means the intersection of artifacts and individuals/ 
groups/organizations. Your work gives me pause for thought in the sense that I 
wonder if the recent growth of participation in "IT-mediated Crowds" may partly 
be a consequence of the loneliness that you describe... 

If you're curious about what I mean by "Crowd-engagement" and "IT-mediated 
Crowds" you can find some of my work here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2193115
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2324637

Also, there's some emerging research that I think may be useful for you to 
consider, see here:  
 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./cogs.12009/abstract - Interactive 
Team Cognition
 - http://hbr.org/2012/04/the-new-science-of-building-great-teams - 
Sociometrics and the "new" science of teams

Nonetheless, I hope that this is useful for you, and I look forward to any 
feedback/comments from yourself or anyone on the list. 

Best,
John





- Original Message -
From: fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Friday, 27 September, 2013 09:00:12
Subject: fis Digest, Vol 575, Issue 7

Send fis mailing list submissions to
fis@listas.unizar.es

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es

You can reach the person managing the list at
fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of fis digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. THE SOCIOTYPE: SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND BEYOND (Raquel del Moral)


--

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:31:40 +0200
From: Raquel del Moral 
Subject: [Fis] THE SOCIOTYPE: SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND BEYOND
To: fis 
Message-ID: <52456c9c.4030...@aragon.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

*_THE SOCIOTYPE: SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND BEYOND_
Raquel del Moral */
/(Bioinformation Group, IACS)*

*

Some years ago in one of the FIS sessions 
(https://webmail.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/2006-March/001309.html), Pedro 
pointed at the triad "genotype-phenotype-sociotype" and emphasized the 
importance of a structure of social bonds around the individual. 
Precisely by developing further the Sociotype concept, as a new 
construct that describes both the structural & dynamic aspects of the 
individual's relationships, I am advancing a PhD Thesis. Also supported 
by a Ministry of Science and Innovation's biomedical project, our group 
is carrying out an empirical research work in order to develop a 
questionnaire able to measure the sociotype, the network of 
relationships of the person, in order to correlate it with mental health 
and risk (loneliness) situations.

THE SOCIOTYPE: OVERALL PANORAMA
Our work discusses the pertinence of a "sociotype" construct, both 
theoretically and empirically oriented. The term, based on the 
conceptual chain genotype-phenotype-sociotype, suggests the existence of 
an evolutionary 'preference' in the human species for some determined 
averages of social organization and communication relationships. 
Although human individuals become highly adaptive and resilient 
concerning the implementation of their sociality, a core pattern, or 
"sociotype" might be established for their networking relationships. The 
sociotype appears as a structural/relational pattern which is actively 
looked for, and the absence of which provokes predisposition towards 
feelings of loneliness and unhappiness. The prospect of establishing 
numerical characteristics for that pattern, both structural and dynamic, 
does not look too farfetched. Hypothesis such as the "social brain" have 
already advanced robust structural data. From the biomedical point of 
view, properly framing the sociotype hypothesis and putting it into 
empirical test could be a timely enterprise. As a number of contemporary 
studies on social networks have reported, perceived isolation and 
loneliness feelings turn out to be an unrewarding condition for 
individuals, an unwanted state, and also a risk factor for their health. 
In our times, the social changes derived from the economic 
globalization, the new communication technologies, and the demographic 
transition towards elderly populations have implied dramatic changes in 
the social relationships of entire communities. Given the absence of 
efficient psychosocial indicators, an empirical search on the relational 
phenomenon throughout the sociotype lens might provide useful 
orientations for mental health and quality of life policies.

OUR SOCIALITY
Sociality is an o

[Fis] fis Digest, Vol 581, Issue 1

[John Prpic]

ON COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE: The Future of IT-Mediated Crowds
John Prpić 
Beedie School of Business
Simon Fraser University
pr...@sfu.ca


Software (including web pages and mobile applications etc) is the key building 
block of the IT field in terms of human interaction, and can be construed as an 
artifact that codifies organizational process “…in the form of software 
embedded “routines” (Straub and Del Guidice 2012). These organizational 
processes are frozen into the artifact, though not fossilized, since the 
explicit codification that executes an artifact can be readily updated when 
desired (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001, Yoo et al. 2012). 

A software artifact always includes “a setting of interaction” or a user 
interface, for example a GUI or a DOS prompt (Rogers 2004), where human beings 
employ the embedded routines codified within the artifact (including data) for 
various purposes, providing input, and receiving programmed output in return. 
The setting of interaction provides both the limits and possibilities of the 
interaction between a human being and the artifact, and in turn this 
“dual-enablement” facilitates the functionality available to the employ of a 
human being or an organization (Del Giudice 2008). This structural view of 
artifacts (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001) informs us that “IT artifacts are, by 
definition, not natural, neutral, universal, or given” (Orlikowski and Iacono 
2001), and that “IT artifacts are always embedded in some time, place, 
discourse, and community” (Orlikowski and Iacono 2001).

Emerging research and our observation of developments in Industry and in the 
Governance context signals that organizations are increasingly engaging Crowds 
through IT artifacts to fulfill their idiosyncratic needs. This new and rapidly 
emerging paradigm of socio-technical systems can be found in Crowdsourcing 
(Brabham 2008), Prediction Markets (Arrow et al. 2008), Wikis (Majchrzak et al. 
2013), Crowdfunding (Mollick 2013), Social Media (Kietzmann et al 2011), and 
Citizen Science techniques (Crowston & Prestopnik 2013).  Acknowledging and 
incorporating these trends, research has emerged conceptualizing a parsimonious 
model detailing how and why organizations are engaging Crowds through IT in 
these various substantive domains (Prpić & Shukla 2013, 2014). The model 
considers Hayek's (1945) construct of dispersed knowledge in society, as the 
antecedent condition (and thus the impetus too) driving the increasing 
configuration of IT to engage Crowds, and further details that organizations 
are doing so for the purposes of capital creation (knowledge & financial). 

However, as might be expected, many questions remain in this growing domain, 
and thus I would like to present the following questions to the FIS group, to 
canvas your very wise and diverse views.


Is there such a thing as Collective Intelligence? 
How does IT effect the existence or non-existence of Collective Intelligence? 
- http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Woolley2010a.pdf
- http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1919614
- http://www.collectiveintelligence2014.org/

How do national innovation systems (and thus policy too) change when we 
consider IT-mediated crowds as the 4th Helix of innovation systems? 
- http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/book/978-1-4614-2061-3

Does the changing historical perception of crowds signal other societal 
changes? 
- http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1907199


Sources:
Afuah, Allan, and Christopher L. Tucci. "Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant 
search." Academy of Management Review 37.3 (2012): 355-375.

Anne Majchrzak, Christian Wagner, and Dave Yates. 2013. The Impact of Shaping 
on Knowledge Reuse for Organizational Improvement with Wikis. MIS Quarterly, 
37, 2, (2013), 455–A12. 

Daren C. Brabham. 2008. Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving: An 
introduction and cases. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into 
New Media Technologies. 14, 1, (2008), 75–90. 

John Prpić and Prashant Shukla. 2013. The Theory of Crowd Capital. Proceedings 
of the 46th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, 
Hawaii, January 7-10, Computer Society Press, (2013). 

John Prpić and Prashant Shukla. 2014. The Contours of Crowd Capability. 
Proceedings of the 47th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System 
Sciences, Big Island Hawaii, January 6-9, Computer Society Press, (2014). 

Kenneth Arrow, Forsythe, M. Gorham, R. Hahn, R. Hanson, J.O. Ledyard, S. 
Levmore, R. Litan, P. 
Milgrom, F.D. Nelson, G.R. Neumann, M. Ottaviani, T.C. Schelling, R.J. Shiller, 
V.L. Smith, E. Snowberg, C.R. Sunstein, P.C. Tetlock, P.E. Tetlock, H.R. 
Varian, J. Wolfers, and E. Zitzewitz. 2008. The promise of prediction markets. 
Science. 320, 5878, (2008), 877-878. 

Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). 
Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of 
so

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 581, Issue 8

[John Prpic]

Dear FIS'ers, 

Thanks so much to all of you for your wonderfully thought provoking comments, 
questions, and feedback! 
In this note, I'll attempt to address some of the queries/comments that have 
been shared. 

John Collier says: 
[As I understand it, John?s approach is specifically based on using 
Information Technology mediated groups of agents to derive the existence of a 
collective intelligence, but I would like it to be explained in what this 
intelligence consists . In other words, are we dealing with knowledge-as-such 
(stored and shared data) or capability for effecting change. John P. does say 
that crowd capability is directed at processing knowledge, but does this 
exhaust the content of the concept of intelligence as capability?] 

This is a great question John, and one that has largely been ignored in the 
field, or is at least still contentious in my mind. 
In a sense, the avoidance of this issue signals that this domain is still 
immature, and further that there is opportunity to shape the domain in this 
respect, if one were so inclined. 


The Woolley & Malone et al. crew (in the Science 2010 paper) focus on the small 
group level (very small!), and define CI as a group ability to perform. This 
intimates a process model of CI. Much like Steven I'm not a big fan of this 
work, principally because there is no place for IT in this notion of CI, and it 
seems to me that communication is driving all outcomes (which I think is 
essentially Loet's point too). It does reveal, or rather reminds us, how very 
nebulous the cognitive concept of general intelligence is in it's own right, 
and so in this respect the work is useful. 


The other popular work attempting to define CI, is from Pierre Levy (1999), who 
defines it as [...a form of universally distributed intelligence, 
constantly enhanced, coordinated in real time, and resulting in the effective 
mobilization of skills...]. As opposed to the group-level, Levy is here 
focused on society as a level of analysis. Thus far, I've yet to see any work 
that attempts to reconcile these different levels of analysis, though off the 
cuff these two definitions of CI seem to share a process-orientation, with a 
focus on performance/mobilization outcomes. 


>From my view, broadly speaking, I think that we can certainly say with some 
>confidence that there should be a difference between IT-mediated CI and 
>non-IT-mediated CI (or at least this is my hypothesis). In the former, frozen, 
>yet adaptable artifacts (ie software/algorithms/AI) are involved, while in the 
>latter they are not. You could of course argue that 
>language/society/culture/communication is a technology/artifact in it's own 
>right, and philosophically I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but we can also 
>agree that software is demonstrably different than culture for example. 


It would appear that the explicit codification of knowledge is a bridge between 
the two categories that I draw. 
Further, both forms of CI would most certainly have some level of individual 
human intelligence in common too. 


For me the key difference is that in the IT-mediated case of CI, the existence 
of AI/algorithms denotes a demonstrably different system of interacting parts. 
If this is true, we should expect different dynamics (and probably different 
outcomes) for each system. 



I very much look forward to any further thoughts from the group! 


Best, 
John ___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 581, Issue 8

[John Prpic]

haha, woops, sorry about that Joe :)Wonderful follow-up!Best,JohnFrom: "joe brenner" To: pr...@sfu.caCc: fis@listas.unizar.esSent: Friday, 14 March, 2014 18:56:12Subject: Re: Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 581, Issue 8Dear Colleagues,John Collier is sufficiently well-known and respected in his fields not to mind that one less good comment is attributed to him and allow its author, namely me, to take the credit for it ;-).John P.'s response, to MY question, then, was as broad as it was useful, bringing out a clear tension between IT and non-IT perspectives. The situation, the need for work on the 'nebulous concept' of intelligence is similar to that in the effort of some people, in China and elsewhere, to define an Intelligence Science as opposed to Artificial Intelligence. And was not the start of Information Science by Pedro and Michael Conrad in part as opposition to information as (just) technology?As those familiar with my positions will know, I am much more interested in non-IT-mediated Collective Intelligence (NITCI), which I agree exists provided one takes a process standpoint which is focused not only on outcomes but 'upstream'. Here is where John P.'s reference to 'ability to perform' comes in for further analysis. In my conception, the existence of, and interaction between, collective and individual processes is not only possible but a basic logical and ontological feature of intelligence in general. Finally, although (showing my age), I would not have expected that it would be necessary to repeat that culture can exist independently of software, I was glad to see that a difference between them is acceptable.One possible next step would be to define both Individual and Collective Intelligence in terms of the cognitive process of CREATIVITY. Absent this, the most powerful capability for Promethean outcomes will not be intelligence in my book.Cheers, Joseph  Message d'origineDe : pr...@sfu.caDate : 14/03/2014 - 15:34 (PST)A : fis@listas.unizar.esObjet : Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 581, Issue 8Dear FIS'ers,Thanks so much to all of you for your wonderfully thought provoking comments, questions, and feedback!In this note, I'll attempt to address some of the queries/comments that have been shared.  John Collier says:[As I understand it, John?s approach is specifically based on using Information Technology mediated groups of agents to derive the existence of a collective intelligence, but I would like it to be explained in what this intelligence consists. In other words, are we dealing with knowledge-as-such (stored and shared data) or capability for effecting change. John P. does say that crowd capability is directed at processing knowledge, but does this exhaust the content of the concept of intelligence as capability?]This is a great question John, and one that has largely been ignored in the field, or is at least still contentious in my mind. In a sense, the avoidance of this issue signals that this domain is still immature, and further that there is opportunity to shape the domain in this respect, if one were so inclined. The Woolley & Malone et al. crew (in the Science 2010 paper) focus on the small group level (very small!), and define CI as a group ability to perform. This intimates a process model of CI. Much like Steven I'm not a big fan of this work, principally because there is no place for IT in this notion of CI, and it seems to me that communication is driving all outcomes (which I think is essentially Loet's point too). It does reveal, or rather reminds us, how very nebulous the cognitive concept of general intelligence is in it's own right, and so in this respect the work is useful. The other popular work attempting to define CI, is from Pierre Levy (1999), who defines it as [...a form of universally distributed intelligence, constantly enhanced, coordinated in real time, and resulting in the effective mobilization of skills...]. As opposed to the group-level, Levy is here focused on society as a level of analysis. Thus far, I've yet to see any work that attempts to reconcile these different levels of analysis, though off the cuff these two definitions of CI seem to share a process-orientation, with a focus on performance/mobilization outcomes.From my view, broadly speaking, I think that we can certainly say with some confidence that there should be a difference between IT-mediated CI and non-IT-mediated CI (or at least this is my hypothesis). In the former, frozen, yet adaptable artifacts (ie software/algorithms/AI) are involved, while in the latter they are not. You could of course argue that language/society/culture/communication is a technology/artifact in it's own right, and philosophically I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but we can also agree that software is demonstrably different than culture for example. It would appear that the explicit codification of knowledge is a bridge between the two categories that I draw. Further, both forms of CI would most certainly

Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan

[John Prpic]

Dear Professor Zhong & Colleagues, 

Unsurprisingly, some very rich food for thought in the FIS group so far this 
year! 
Here's a few comments that I hope are useful in some respect: 

- As I think about the idea of intelligence science as put forward, would it be 
useful to say that "context" and "goals" (as constructs) would always be 
antecedents to intelligence science outcomes? 
Said another way, must intelligence science systems always include these two 
elements (among others) in a particular system configuration? 

- Also, when I look at the list of "elementary abilities" of intelligence 
science (ie A-M), it strikes me that more than a few of them can currently be 
considered to be core knowledge management techniques (storing, retrieving, 
transferring, transforming of information etc)... therefore, i s there a 
difference between intelligence science in systems that are self-organized (ie 
complexity science), compared to intelligence science systems that are not 
self-organized? Must all intelligence science systems display complexity? 

Best, 
John 


- Original Message -

From: "钟义信"  
To: "joe brenner"  
Cc: "dai.griffiths.1" , "fis"  
Sent: Wednesday, 11 March, 2015 19:07:36 
Subject: Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan 



Dear Joe, Steven, and other friends, 




It is interesting, ans also benefitial, to have had opportunities to, via FIS 
forum, exchange ideas with you colleagues under the topic of intelihence 
science. Special thanks go to Joe, Steven, and other friends for their good 
comments! 




Intelligence science is, of course, a sort of complex science and would not be 
easy to thoroughly understand in a short period of time. However, it is the 
right time to have it concerned seriously for now as, on one hand, it is 
extremely important for human kinds and, on the other hand, it is possible for 
researchers to make progress toward this direction based on the successes we 
have already achieved in the studies of information science and artificial 
intelligence so far. 




As for the conceptual distinktions between intelligence science and information 
science, between intelligence science and artificial intelligence, and between 
intelligence and wisdom, we may, for the moment, mention the followings: 




-- The scope of intelligence science would be regarded as almost the same as 
that of information science, provided that the studies of information science 
will contain not only information itself but also the products of information, 
in which knowledge and intelligent strategy for problem solving are major 
components. In other words, the studies of information science should adopt the 
view of ecological system. This is also the reason why the topic of 
intelligence science be brought to FIS forum. 




-- According to the current status of the research in artificial intelligence 
(AI), its scope of studies is much narrower than that of intelligence science. 
As a matter of fact, AI for the time being is a category of technological 
research, using computer as platform to support some smart software for solving 
certain problems. AI should be a kind of multi-disciplinary research, but it 
has majnly been confined within the scope of computer science. Not long ago, 
some of the AI researchers started to dealing with the emotion problem, but it 
still in its infant stage. Moreover, the topic of consciousness is still 
ignored in AI. So , AI is indeed incomparable to intelligence science, not to 
say to human intelligence. 




-- The relationship between intelligence and wisdom is sometimes confused. If 
intelligence is referred to human intelligence, it would be the same as wisdom. 
However, if the concept of intelligence is referred to machine intelligence, 
then it should be regarded as a sub-set of wisdom. The most typical attribute 
for wisdom is the creative capabilities that would be impossible for machine to 
simulation. 




In addition, it is also worth of mentioning that due to the special properties 
that information and intelligence possess and that are greatly different from 
that of matter, the methodology for information science and intelligence 
science studies should be radically differnet from that employed in physical 
science. No doubt, everyone will entierly recognize the huge contributions made 
by the redictionism (divide and conquer) which will still play a central role 
in contemporary physical science studies. But reductionism will certainly be 
not enough for information and intelligence science studies. Cutting human 
brain into a number of parts and clearly knowing the matter structure and the 
energy relation within each of the parts (that is the so called 'divide and 
conquer') will make little contribution to the understanding the secrets of 
human brain's function of thinking. 




Whether it is OK or not? comments are welcome. 




Best regards, 




Yixin ZHONG 






- 回复邮件 - 
发信人: joe.bren...@b

Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research:

[John Prpic]

?Hi All,


I just ran across this new piece that I thought would be of interest to both 
the current conversation, and the many others that have occurred here.


"The Bayesian Second Law of Thermodynamics"

- http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02421v2.pdf


Best,

John

?
John Prpic
PhD Candidate

Research<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1919614>
Google Scholar<https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=yiueCGUJ&hl=en>
Twitter<https://twitter.com/JPNuggets>
Special 
Issue<https://beedie.sfu.ca/sms/admin/_DocLibrary/_ic/fd6699ff8c25b8f75e1f822da82412d7.pdf>
CHI 2016 Workshop<http://www.worklearn.org/>

From: Fis  on behalf of Pedro C. Marijuan 

Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 6:23 AM
To: 'fis'
Cc: Nikhil Joshi
Subject: Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research:

Dear FIS colleages,

Before assimilating the last exchanges (I have been on a trip), I have a few 
pending comments on self-organization and monetary resilience.

In some of the papers (links) Bob sent us, strong emphasis is put on 
"self-organization of complex flow systems sharing common patterns of behavior. 
Similar energy-flow concepts and analysis methods would apply to economic 
systems as well as natural ones..."  As the ongoing discussion shows, that view 
can be more or less OK, but... The network and subsequent IT analysis becomes 
appropriate for eco-systemic flows, but in my opinion it obscures a fundamental 
trait of eco-nomic flows: that they are guided and anticipated by a 
superimposed structure of information flows. So there are two flows compounded, 
and each one is endowed with a specific fluency, velocity, friction, etc. 
radically different. Handling prices of goods or trading shares in a stock 
market is far away from circulating the physical goods or from the physical and 
human structures of a company... Unfortunately the info-structure of economy is 
not satisfactorily solved yet (at least in my opinion), except the partial 
classical equilibrium approaches and some diminishing returns and other 
nonlinear approaches. Presumably, a more complete vision cannot be articulated 
yet.

Anyhow, Lietaer's application (in the paper with Goerner and Ulanowicz) of 
Bob's ecological criteria on resilience to the economic crisis looks enormously 
interesting. Some of the thinking lines of Nikhil could dovetail. The 
underlying problem is (at least in my opinion) how to give voice to Nature, not 
only evaluating the value of human work done to extract the raw matter or to 
collect it, but also the caring work with no immediate return.  Who may 
represent Nature herself and her interests in the human monetary market? 
Analyzing the currency monopoly of our times, and the present financial crisis, 
the main alternative seems to be increasing the financial resilience by adding 
different types of currencies. The Swiss B2B complementary currency is 
mentioned in the papers (other local, regional, and sectorial cases also exist, 
and the Internet may strongly facilitate such experiences). In this line, an 
ecologically based currency or eco-coin ("ecos") could pick the voluntary work 
done by individuals --not extracting for nature, but working for her 
preservation and care. ONGs could certify the work properly done. Ecos could be 
a symbol of voluntary work done and also a personal prestige and moral reward 
for Nature "lovers". Quite many new people could be attracted to devote their 
voluntary work to the direct stewardess of Nature (and not to 
political-ideological green activism) being compensated by ecos. The 
international clout of these ecos-coins could be considerable... and the 
certification could be reasonably organized in a very ample scale. The present 
consciousness and fear of climatic change would ad social urgency and further 
potential importance...  --Bob, could this "eco" idea may have any sense?

All the best--Pedro


--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Social Information Structure&dynamics: SOCIOTYPE

[John Prpic]

Looks like a really great paper Pedro, congrats to you and the team!

Best,
John

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:

> Dear FISers,
> Herewith the abstract of a very recent publication of my group about the
> "Sociotype" --it was published yesterday in Plos One.
> Although the paper is oriented towards practical application of a
> sociotype questionnaire in different domains of social/psychological
> research
> and in public health socialization programs, we think it has an ample
> thoretical basis & overall interest in the social information science
> endeavor.
> It was conceived as a rough approach to informational envelop of the
> person into the social niche...
> and we think it may also be useful to highlight personality-type, gender,
> age-segments,  and intercultural differences in socialization.
> By the way, we have been waiting for almost two years, along a really
> strenuous review process.   (!!!)
> Best wishes--Pedro
> See complete version at:
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189568
>
> *The 'sociotype' construct: Gauging the*
> *structure and dynamics of human sociality*
> Pedro C. Marijuan, Jesus Montero-Marin, Jorge Navarro, Javier Garcia-
> Campayo, Raquel del Moral
>
> Exploring the pertinence of a "sociotype" construct, established along the
> conceptual chain
> genotype-phenotype-sociotype, is the essential purpose of the present
> paper. Further, by
> following the sociotype's conceptual guidelines, a new psychometric
> indicator has been
> developed in order to gauge the level of social interaction around each
> individualÐthe sociotype
> questionnaire (SOCQ). A first version of this questionnaire has been
> elaborated by
> gathering data about the different classes of social bonds (family,
> friends, acquaintances,
> and work/study colleagues) in general population and about the dynamic
> update of these
> bonds via face-to-face conversation and other modes of interaction. A
> specific fieldwork was
> undertaken, involving 1,075 participants, all of them Spanish adults (with
> diverse social and
> regional backgrounds). The data obtained were analyzed by means of the
> correlational
> method with an analytical cross-sectional design: the number of factors
> and the consistency
> and reliability of the resulting scales were evaluated and correlated. The
> new sociotype indicator
> resulting from that fieldwork, in spite of its limitations, seems to be
> valid and reliable,
> as well as closely associated with widely used metrics of loneliness and
> psychological distress.
> It is interesting that the construct noticeably varies throughout the life
> course and circumstances
> of individuals, based on their gender and age, and adjusting to the
> different
> situations of social networking. This is the first study, to the best of
> our knowledge, which
> has tried to reach both a theoretical and an operational formulation of
> the sociotype construct,
> by establishing an ad hoc psychometric questionnaire. We think that the
> information
> provided by this operational definition opens a new direction of work that
> could be useful to
> guide the development and evaluation of programs aimed at improving and
> strengthening
> social networking in people at risk, especially for the elderly.
>
> --
> -
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 <+34%20976%2071%2035%2026> (& 
> 6818)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>


-- 
John Prpić PhD
Research 
 / Google Scholar
 / Twitter
 / HICSS 2018

 / Crowd Science Project


Recent Articles:
Next Generation Crowdsourcing for Collective Intelligence

Connecting Online Work and Online Education at Scale

Crowd Science: Research on IT-Mediated Crowds


Unpacking Blockchains

Specifying and Operationalizing an Organizational Theory of Crowdsourcing