Last night, I went on a run with my friend. This, although somewhat of an abstract example of a cognitive system, fits the definition of a cognitive system, that “… systems coordinate transformations on representations in goal-seeking behavior.” Our goal as a system is to get a good workout and maintain a heart rate of 180.
Our heart-rate monitors represent our heart rate, which in turn, tells us how hard we are working. This representation has a shared meaning, as we were both resting at about 85 before we started, and consistently share similar rates. The shared meaning may vary with individuals, as not everybody rests at the same heart rate. We were able to transform the information in this representation, knowing from past experience that we want to maintain a rate of 180. When we fell to 165, we both knew we needed to pick up our pace. When we were going up a hill, we were able to slow down while keeping our heart rate above 180.
Another representation was our map. The piece of paper, which represented our directional goal, also had a shared meaning, as we were both starting and finishing at the same location. This representation was transformed using street signs, other representations, to inform us of the direction we needed to go.
This task could be looked at as both tightly and loosely coupled. We are interacting the entire time, talking, motivating each other, and collaborating to guide our system by using the map. Based on our consistent interaction, we have a tight couple. However, our goal is possible to be met individually and isn't 100% dependent on the collaboration of our system. Because of this independency, we could also argue that our system is loosely coupled. I am someone however, who relies on the motivation that this system provides in order to make my goal much more attainable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This is an interesting take on a cognitive system. While I was writing mine I considered doing my hockey team but I couldn't really think of how to relate my experience in a physical activity to a cognitive system. Yours does this very well, though I think you had to rely on the heart monitor and map to make the connection; a simple run with a partner wouldn't have sufficed as a cognitive system. Also, I like your opinion on tightly coupled vs. loosely coupled. I would've initially argued loosely coupled because I figured you're both independent of each other in your task, but when you consider how one person pushes the other person on, the task becomes somewhat tightly coupled.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Liza, and I agree with everything you said Eric. When I began to read this post, I was curious as to how you were going to relate running with a partner to a class on collaboration technology, but you sold me on running as a cognitive system. Your cognitive running system is actually very similar to aviation system described in Hutchins' paper. You and your partner seem to have no uncertainty on your tasks for the run, and I definitely agree that running with a partner can be a tightly-coupled activity. Perhaps it would fit even more into the "tightly-coupled" category if you included one of your goals to be "maintain an equal pace with your partner." I don't know how much you and your running-mate interact when on a run, but including a goal like this which depends on your partner makes it difficult for anyone to argue "loose coupling" for your run.
ReplyDelete