@dcm@bookwyrm.social @UlrikeHahn @NicoleCRust @dcm@social.sunet.se @awaisaftab @uh

I like the term “constraint satisfaction” as it captures how conditions/experience can move an individual toward a regulated state (not unlike the synchronizing clocks).

cf: Blair describes causal role of SES, cortisone, etc., in emotional reactivity, school readiness.

Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobio conceptualization of children's functioning at school entry. The Amer Psych, 57, 111-127.

@dsmith @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @dcm@social.sunet.se @awaisaftab @uh Dylan, I like the notion of constraint satisfaction in many contexts, but I think my specific problem here with these three examples is identifying what exactly *is* the constraint and what is its nature.

@UlrikeHahn @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @dcm@social.sunet.se @awaisaftab @uh

I think I understand this difficulty. Not easy to describe a constraint... What caused your window to blow in, a specific wind or the entire storm? Any attempt to explain needs to account the big-picture storm, but then the explanation smacks of description.

Solution?.. I think the value of group discussion is that each of you brings diverse experience that can help all to "pan out" via concrete examples.

The Blair article is brilliant, btw.

@UlrikeHahn @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @dcm@social.sunet.se @awaisaftab @uh

Back to the clocks... Any one of the clocks cannot continue to do just what it was doing because the other clocks create conditions (constraints) that keep it from doing so. That is, the other clocks are "canalizing" the behaviour of the clock in question.

@dsmith @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @dcm@social.sunet.se @awaisaftab @uh

or is the resonator (the shelf) the constraint?

or is the fact that you cannot maintain the interfering vibrations the constraint?

and isn't the presence of the resonator also a context?

or is the context the thing that provides the physical manifestation of the constraint?

?????

@dsmith @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @dcm@social.sunet.se @awaisaftab @uh agreed, but I’m with Dmitri here (and also @jef ‘s early comments on observers): that’s not the story the book is trying to tell. The claims of the book are much stronger. That makes them really interesting, but it also means they really need to be supported

@UlrikeHahn @dcm@bookwyrm.social @NicoleCRust @dcm@social.sunet.se @awaisaftab @uh

I see. That alone is v. interesting!