www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Be careful Jim - this one can do both! (& sometimes in the same post 8-)
Patty wrote:Ray Gardener wrote:
It's an interesting point. Women, for instance, often engage in "talking forI think this kind of behavior grew out of grooming behavior in social animals. It's called gossip. The objective is bonding *within* the group - froming consensus building a common language, stuff like that.
the sake of talking", because they like the feeling that everyone is in
dialogue with each other. The actual words themselves don't matter much;
it's the act of banter itself that makes them feel close. Women even
sometimes feel that they wish they had more problems so that they could
start more conversations and have more to talk about. Not to solve the
problems, of course -- that's besides the point. They look forward to the
getting-together and the talking-about-the-problems and
having-the-coffee-together part.
Men tend to value content more. For them, there should be some point or endI think "content" is the wrong word here. The male objectives just tend to be more pointed and goal directed. The objectives being *outside* of the social interchange - ie the furtherance of an adgenda: "Let's go fight those suckers!". Sometimes I wonder why my any friends at all - he never calls anybody unless he wants something from them.
goal to conversation directly attributable to the information in the talk.
When men have nothing to gain from talking, they say little -- fathers and
grown-up sons and brothers can go for years without picking up the phone,
and when they do it's usually to say "How ya doing? I'm fine, yeah. Anything
new with you? No? Well, nothing's new here. Okay, see ya." Women find that
odd; they could easily exchange talk about what their respective pasts have
been like even if nothing new arises in informational terms. To not do so
would be to risk appearing unsupportive. In short, most men value data, and
most women value feelings.
But of course we are totally over generalizing here - men do have bonding parties - and women do have adgendas outside of gossip.
It was actually for the above reasons that (in earlier times, so I've beenI imagine that there does not exist any mutual exclusion here whatsoever.
told) that male scholars weren't sure if most women even had souls, but were
instead zombies, because their behavior appeared circularly defined. I
personally prefer to believe the situation exists because of evolutionary
and biological necessity -- a species composed entirely of male minds or
only of female minds would be at a competitive disadvantage to others. As to
why each person tends not to contain both mindsets, I imagine that there
exists a mutual exclusion about them.
It perhaps begs the question of whether we should split the Turing Test intoI would just forget about your fabeled mutual exclusion. But you have drawn out attention to the notion that social bonding and building the language and heuristics of the tribe is a fine motive for dialogue.
male and female versions. At what point does an AI convince a group of women
that it is one of them? Would it be a subset of a male AI's capabilities, or
some other set of functionality altogether? Could an AI exhibit both male
and female conversational styles without the supposed mutual exclusion?
I can see an AI with a catalog of motives - once the stimulus is recieved (parsed and recorded), choose a goal for the response - social bonding is perhaps a good default goal - it should be an easy piece - almost any non-hostile to the in-group response will work :)
... good dialogue, though :)
Patty
I have found that men and women have a tendency to speak about issues in slightly different ways. Men will often try to focus on one point at a time occaisionally making comments on the exchange, while women will tend to discuss an issue with some more variation and using more subtlety to make comments about the exchange and other tangential subjects.
Jim Bromer
-- David Longley
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Please check out one of the premium Usenet Newsgroup Service Providers below for access to Usenet.