Social capabilities across human development | Part 19
Kindness to the person in front of you does not necessarily improve the situation for everyone. Reducing one person's responsibility may increase another's. Handling multiple relationships involves identifying those affected by an action, beyond the visible requester.
Asking someone else to clear the dishes
During community cooking, a participant asks someone to clear their dishes too. The person receiving the request notices another participant already carrying a substantial workload. Instead of accepting immediately and pushing remaining duties onto that person, all three discuss the division again.
This is fictional. Neither simply refusing one person's wish nor prioritizing it automatically resolves the situation. Making tasks and effects visible allows different fatigue or time constraints to be considered through people's own explanations.
Joint activity involves responsibility to a partner
Research on children's joint commitments offers material for considering how acting together differs from individual achievement. See Kachel and Tomasello: Joint commitments.
Experimental findings cannot determine the right task division in community activities. This article uses the idea that participation affects others' plans and results to analyze a scene. Responsibility changes with activities, roles, and agreements.
Relationships across family, friends, school, and work become more complex during development. Adulthood does not guarantee awareness of everyone's workload. Ways for participants to exchange relevant information also matter.
Whose burden is less visible?
The need of someone making a spoken request is easier to notice than the need of someone quietly continuing work. A close person's circumstances may be familiar while another worker's deadline is unknown. Before changing duties, check effects on people who did not directly ask.
This is not a reason to investigate everyone's private life. Share constraints relevant to the task while leaving ways to negotiate without disclosing personal details. Silence from someone who finds participation difficult should not be processed as consent.
When the participants lack change authority, consult the responsible person. Kind intentions do not create authority to assign a new obligation to a third party.
A design hypothesis for physical AI
Prioritizing satisfaction of the nearest person may transfer burdens out of view. A possible design separately handles requesters, assigned workers, affected people, resources, and change authority.
Do not execute a proposed reassignment before relevant agreement is established. If information is missing, identify the unknown effects and consult the responsible person. Withdrawal of consent should stop unexecuted changes.
Evaluation could swap the positions of familiar and unfamiliar people, or vocal and quiet participants. The proposal examines unauthorized work transfer alongside whether the request was achieved.
A decision in four panels
- Someone requests help clearing dishes.
- Another person's larger workload is noticed.
- Three people discuss responsibility.
- Each carries out the agreed share.
This fictional comic does not establish fairness from an equal-looking allocation; it depicts consultation and changed responsibilities.
References
About this series
This series uses published literature to examine everyday situations. Its 7 domains and 22 capabilities are an editorial framework, not a standard academic classification. Differences in age or culture are not rankings of people's social worth or capability. The proposed AI designs do not establish humanlike emotional experience or demonstrated product performance. The comics illustrate fictional examples.
LOGIHEART's research and development vision
LOGIHEART is researching how to implement social capabilities in physical AI that interacts with people.
Explore the research and development vision at the LOGIHEART website and in the English introduction video.
Top comments (0)