Social Moves: An Integrated Ecological Approach to Social Cognition

Published in

Curativity Center

17 min readDec 6, 2023

Thematic Space, Social Territory, and Social (Cognition)

I have mentioned the theme of “Social Moves” in several articles. The theme of “Social Moves” is part of my journey of developing Attachance Theory.

This article aims to introduce an integrated ecological approach to Social Cognition.

This is a major milestone of the Social Moves project.

Part 1: From Thematic Space to Social Territory

1.1 The Social Moves project
1.2 Two Case Studies
1.3 Theory-based Reflection

Part 2: Thematic Space Theory

2.1 The “Thematic Space Theory” (TST) Framework
2.2 Invariant Set: Thematic Spaces
2.3 Invariant: Thematic Zones
2.4 Variant: Thematic Practices
2.5 Quasi-invariant: Thematic Areas

Part 3: An Integrated Ecological Approach

3.1 The Ecological Formism Framework
3.2 The Notion of “Ecological Formism”
3.3 The “Ecological Actualism” Framework
3.4 An Ecological Approach to “Social (Cognition)”

Part 1: From Thematic Space to Social Territory

Part 1 offers the background of the new framework.

1.1 The Social Moves project

In July 2023, I finished the “Mental Moves” knowledge project and edited a possible book titled Mental Moves: The Attachance Approach to Ecological Creative Cognition. On August 24, 2023, I started the “Social Moves” knowledge project which uses “Social Territory” as the primary concept.

The term “Social Territory” was inspired by Ping-keung Lui’s term “Social Territory” and his Subjectivist Structuralism which is part of his theoretical sociology.

I have claimed that “Knowledge Center” is a type of Social Territory. You can find more details in Knowledge Engagement: The Creative Course Framework.

I generally use “Social Territory” in the “Social Moves” knowledge project.

If we put “Mental Moves” and “Social Moves” together, we see a new unit of analysis of Social Cognition. While “Social Moves” are about Social Actions, “Mental Moves” are about related Mental Activities.

Social Cognition = Social Moves (Mental Moves)

Both “Mental Moves” and “Social Moves” shared the concept of “Thematic Space”.

For the Mental Moves project, the concept of “Thematic Space” is associated with knowledge models/knowledge frameworks.

For the Social Moves project, I need to find a way to connect “Thematic Space” and “Social Territory”.

1.2 Two Case Studies

In Sept 2023, I used a Psychological Counseling Platform as an example to conduct a case study about “Social Moves”.

The above diagram used the Activity Circle model as the basic model to represent the structure of a psychological counseling platform. For people who work on the platform, their social life can be understood as moving between different types of Activity Circles.

You can find more details in Value Circle #4: From “ARCH” to “Activity Circle”.

In Nov 2023, I used Robert Kegan’s knowledge enterprise as an example of “Social Moves”.

Kegan switched between four roles and moved between four different types of thematic spaces of psychological knowledge engagement.

Theoretical Psychologists — The THEORY thematic space
Empirical Psychologists — The END thematic space
Intervenors — The MEANS thematic space
Actors — The PRACTICE thematic space

These four types of knowledge creators have different perspectives and behavioral patterns because they have different construal levels, practical interests, points of observation, methodological preferences, and expressive conventions (or language habits).

Since the four thematic spaces correspond to four types of roles, moving between these thematic spaces means moving between four social spaces.

This is a perfect example of Social Moves (Mental Moves).

1.3 Theory-based Reflection

For Kegan’s case, I roughly used “four types of thematic spaces for knowledge engagement”.

The THEORY thematic space > Theoretical Development -> Setting the Term
The END thematic space > Empirical Research -> Bounding the Case
The MEAN thematic space > Intervention and Curation -> Capturing the Theme
The PRACTICE thematic space > Life Reflection -> Weaving the Mind

Kegan’s case used the Knowledge Discovery Canvas as the basic model to represent a structure of a specific type of “Social Territory”.

The Psychological Counseling Platform case used the Activity Circle model as the basic model to represent a structure of a specific type of “Social Territory”.

While we can continually conduct more case studies and discover more thematic spaces for discussing Social Moves, we could use the Theory-based reflection method to develop an abstract model.

The above two case studies and other examples are located on Practice-based Reflection. After editing the book Grasping the Concept, I moved from the END area to the THEORY area.

What’s the difference between the END area and the THEORY area?

The END Area > Empirical Research > Bounding the Case
The THEORY Area > Theoretical Development > Setting the Term

In the END Area, my mental focus is to search and find cases that could match the concept.

In the THEORY Area, my mental focus is to develop a set of terms to form a systematic theoretical framework.

Part 2: Thematic Space Theory

Part 2 introduces the “Thematic Space Theory” (TST) Framework

2.1 The “Thematic Space Theory” (TST) Framework

On Dec 1, 2023, I made a new framework to connect the concept of “Thematic Space” and the concept of “Social Territory”.

Since it is an abstract model, I used “Thematic Space Theory (TST)” to name this framework. See the diagram below.

The above TST framework uses “Variant > Quasi-invariant > Invariant > Invariant Set” as the foundation to define four types of entities for theoretical building.

Invariant: Thematic Zones
Invariant Set: Thematic Spaces
Quasi-invariant: Thematic Areas
Variant: Thematic Practices

I also use four diagrams as examples of these concepts.

2.2 Invariant Set: Thematic Spaces

The level of “Invariant Set” refers to a set of themes and their thematic spaces.

For example, the diagram below shows a set of themes that represents the core of my “Curativity” knowledge enterprise.

I have worked in the curation field for over ten years. I was the Chief Information Architect of BagTheWeb.com which was an early tool for content curation (We launched the site in 2010). This experience inspired me to make a long-term commitment to the Curation theme. After having 10 years of various curation-related practical work experience and theory learning, I coined a term called Curativity and developed Curativity Theory which became a book.

The core idea of Curativity Theory is very simple:

In order to effectively curate pieces into a meaningful whole, we need Container as part to contain pieces and shape them.

The theory built a brand new ontology called “Whole, Piece and Part” and adopted James Gibson’s “Affordance”, George Lakoff’s “Container” and Donald Schön’s “Reflection” as epistemological tools. To test the theory, I wrote several case studies, and one of them is titled Knowledge Curation.

In March 2019, I finished a 615-page Google doc file which is titled Curativity: The Ecological Approach to General Curation Practice.

After March 2019, I continuously worked on revising Curativity. For the direction of Curativity Theory, I am looking for practical applications, for example:

Knowledge Curation
Action Curation
Life Curation
Platform Curation

In August 2020, I started the Knowledge Curation project and the first sub-project is the Activity U project. The journey led to the following secondary themes:

Affordance
Activity
Anticipation
Concept
Diagram

The “Affordance” theme refers to Affordacne Theory which is a core idea of Ecological Psychology. As mentioned above, I adopted James Gibson’s “Affordance”, George Lakoff’s “Container” and Donald Schön’s “Reflection” as epistemological tools for Curativity Theory. Originally, I called it the “Gibson-Lakoff-Schön” solution. Later, I renamed it the Ecological Practice Approach.

The “Activity” theme refers to Activity Theory or CHAT (Cultural-historical activity theory) which is an interdisciplinary philosophical framework for studying both individual and social aspects of human behavior. I started the Activity U project on August 19, 2020. Initially, I just made a diagram called “Activity U” which is a test of a framework. Later, It expanded from one post to a series of articles and two books. Eventually, it led to a three-year journey.

The “Anticipation” theme refers to the Anticipatory Activity System (AAS) framework which is inspired by Activity Theory and Robert Rosen’s Anticipatory Systems theory. The AAS framework aims to offer an abstract model for understanding “Self, Other, Present, Future”. While the traditional Activity Theory focuses on “Exploitative Activity”, the AAS framework is more about “Exploratory Activity”.

The “Concept” theme refers to my 2021 book Project-oriented Activity Theory and the Themes of Practice framework. Project-oriented Activity Theory follows Andy Blunden’s approach to an interdisciplinary theory of Activity Theory. The core idea of Blunden’s approach is the notion of “Activity as Formation of Concept” which echoes my idea of “Themes of Practice”.

The “Diagram” theme refers to the D as Diagramming project which produced two books (drafts) about diagrams and diagramming as practice. Diagrams are one of my favorite practices. I love to dwell in thought with diagramming. I even wrote a 108-page thesis that developed a theory about diagrams and diagramming in 2018. I consider two groups of ideas for my theory about diagrams. The first group is “meta-diagram, diagram, and diagram system” and the second group is “diagramming as an activity of knowing, theorizing, and reflecting”. These two ideas led to two books in 2021.

You can find more details in Mapping Thematic Landscape (Curativity, 2019–2022).

2.3 Invariant: Thematic Zones

To connect the concept of “Thematic Space” and the concept of “Social Territory”, I decided to use the term “Thematic Zones” as the basic unit of analysis for Social Moves.

The term “Thematic Zones” was inspired by the ARCH framework.

On Oct 1, 2022, I introduced the ARCH framework as A Visual Language of Interpersonal Interactions and Collaborative Project Engagement.

The ARCH framework roughly uses five stages to understand the development of interpersonal relationships. The third stage is Think Together and its key word is Relevance. See the diagram below.

The primary theoretical resource behind the above diagram is “Themes of Practice”. You can find more details in Themes of Practice (2019–2021).

In July 2021, I conducted an empirical study titled Themes of Practice, Social Media, and Interpersonal Communication and wrote a 56-page report. Some ideas are adopted for the present model:

Primary Theme
Existing Themes and Emerging Themes
Interpretation
Mentionship

I also consider Relevance Theory as a theoretical background.

On Feb 28, 2023, I developed a Linguistic Perspective on Product Engagement and identified 14 types of thematic spaces and 5 types of product speech. The outcome is the “Product Langue” framework.

I used the diagram below to represent the basic model of “Product Langue”.

The above diagram uses the concept “Thematic Space” to refer to a social practice containing product speech.

The “Langue” is a representation of a “Product”s core which describes its uniqueness.

In different concrete situations, the “Langue” is represented by different things which are focuses of product speech.

For example, the diagram is the Thematic Space of “Consumer Research”.

The thematic space of “product langue” is a social interactive space.

Now I should use “Thematic Zones” to name it.

In general, the term “Thematic Zones” refers to interpersonal social interactive spaces.

2.4 Variant: Thematic Practices

The level of Variant refers to the origin experience of life world. For the TST framework, I used the term “Thematic Practices” to highlight the thematic aspect of human life.

It means “Practices” are the Container of “Themes”.

For example, I used the diagram below to represent the landscape of my “Curativity” knowledge enterprise.

The above diagram was made with the Mapping Thematic Landscape method.

The method uses three nested circles as a basic model.

Theme: this inner circle is for displaying Themes and Books.
Work: the middle circle refers to Projects and two types of Knowledge Frameworks: Abstract Models and Concrete Models.
Play: the outer circle is about Programs that consider two types of things: Tools and Actions.

While the Theme circle and the Work circle are about knowledge makers’ work, the Play circle refers to the collaborative space between knowledge makers and knowledge users.

These three circles also have different significant aspects of complexity.

Theme: the cognitive aspect of complexity is the primary challenge.
Work: the material aspect of complexity is the primary challenge.
Play: the social aspect of complexity is the primary challenge.

Both “Work” and “Play” are “Practices” of “Themes”.

You can find more details in Mapping Thematic Landscape (Curativity, 2019–2022).

2.5 Quasi-invariant: Thematic Areas

From one side, the level of “Quasi-invariant” can be seen as Patterns or Structures of the level of “Variant”.

On the other side, the level of “Quasi-invariant” can be seen as the Context of the level of “Invariant”.

For example, I used the term “Thematic Areas” to rename the four thematic spaces of the Knowledge Discovery Canvas. This idea was discovered in Kegan’s case. This is a pattern of the “Thematic Practices” of Psychological Knowledge Engagement.

As mentioned above, the Psychological Counseling Platform case used the Activity Circle model as the basic model to represent a structure of a specific type of “Social Territory”.

The Psychological Counseling Platform is understood as a configuration of a set of Thematic Zones.

We can see the Activity Circle model is a framework for understanding Thematic Zones.

In this way, the Psychological Counseling Platform is a Thematic Area.

Part 3: An Integrated Ecological Approach

Part 3 introduces the Ecological Formism framework and the Ecological Actualism framework.

3.1 The Ecological Formism Framework

The TST framework is part of a large framework that is defined by the “Variant > Quasi-invariant > Invariant > Invariant Set” framework. See the diagram below.

In the above diagram, we see five levels of analysis:

Concept
Frame for Work
“Thematic Space Theory” (TST)
Activity
Affordance

The “Concept” level is about the transformation between themes and concepts. See the diagram below. You can find more details in Themes of Practice: Concept, Activity, and Cognition.

The “Frame for Work” level is about the emergence of framework patterns. For example, the diagram below is the Thematic Curation Framework.

It was formed by several elements such as “Explore Widely”, “Inquire Deeply”, “Crystallize Thematically”, “Work Deely”, “Play Widely”, etc.

It is a “Derived Forms” which is located at the “Quasi-invariant” level.

What are its Basic Forms?

The S-T-O Tendency!

S stands for Subjectification: turning the world into a person’s experience
T refers to Crystallize Thematically: discovering a match between individual life themes and collective cultural themes.
O stands for Objectification: turning the person’s experience into artifacts for the world

You can find more details in Slow Cognition: The Creative Life Curation Framework.

What is its “Framework-in-Use”? See the example below.

You can find more details in The Activity U Project and Creative Life Curation.

The TST level or the Thematic Space level is a middle level that connects Activity and “Frame for Work”.

The “Activity” level is about different patterns of a set of actions.

The “Affordance” level is related to the Operation level of Activity.

3.2 The Notion of “Ecological Formism“

What does the term “Ecological Formism” mean?

Originally, the term “Ecological Formism” was born from the Kinds of Actors framework. In Nov 2022, I developed the Kinds of Actors framework for the Creative Life Curation project. See the diagram below.

The above diagram displays four types of actors in a different visual layout. Now we can see the implicit similarity between Curators and Theoretical Sociologists.

I use “Linguistic Formism” as a label to describe Theoretical Sociologists, especially Ping-keung Lui’s approach.

For the Creative Life Curation framework, Curators tend to use Units of Analysis to reflect on Actors’ life experiences. There is a “frame” behind each Unit of Analysis. Curators work with Actors’ life experiences and frames.

I use First-order Experience and Second-order Experience to describe two types of life experiences. While First-order Experience is directly given, it requires using Techniques to detective Second-order Experience.

Since Curators have to deal with Actors’ life experiences, their frames have to be suitable for sensemaking with actions and projects. So, I called it “Ecological Formism”.

The similarity between Curators and Theoretical Sociologists is “Formism” while their difference is between the Ecological approach and the Linguistic approach.

You can find more details in Creative Life Curation: Kinds of Actors which was written on Nov 21, 2022.

From Jan 2023 to April 2023, I read Ping-keung Lui’s book Gaze, Actions, and the Social World and wrote 15 notes which were edited as a 228-page book (draft). You can find more details in A New Possible Book: Knowledge Engagement.

In these notes, I further developed the notion of “Ecological Formism”. I used the following terms to develop a framework for it:

Variant
Quasi-invariant
Invariant
Invariant Set

The “Variant > Quasi-invariant > Invariant > Invariant Set” framework is an epistemological framework.

In the concept of Mindset project, I assigned the framework to four types of actors to discuss the landscape of Psychological Knowledge Engagement.

I also used Robert Regan’s Knowledge Enterprise to test the framework. I discovered four thematic areas, eight thematic spaces, and several thematic zones.

You can find more details in Psychological Knowledge Engagement and Robert Kegan’s Knowledge Enterprise.

3.3 The “Ecological Actualism” Framework

In Jan 2023, I also used the term “Ecological Formism” to name a new meaning.

In Jan 2023, I worked on a thematic conversation about “Strategic Exploration” and discussed building a knowledge framework around a primary theme with a friend.

I used “a possible configuration of a theme network” to describe the structure of the things inside the thematic space. Moreover, I developed the notion of “Ecological Formism” with the following distinction:

Possible: many possible configurations of a theme network
Actual: a particular configuration of a theme network
Representation: a diagram of a particular configuration

This is a major outcome of the project from my perspective. On Jan 30, 2023, I realized that the further task is to develop a new ontology of knowledge frameworks after publishing the post about the Field of Meta-learning (v1.0).

To remember this significant insight, I made a cover image and used “Frame for Work” as a new possible theme.

Now I want to keep the “Possible — Actual — Representation” schema but detach the term “Ecological Formism” from it.

I use the term “Ecological Actualism” to name the “Possible — Actual — Representation” schema.

In fact, the “Possible — Actual — Representation” schema is similar to the universal hierarchy of activity and practice.

On Sep 29, 2020, I published an article titled Activity U (VI): The Hierarchy of Human Activity and Social Practice. The article is part of the Activity U project. A side-product of the article is a universal hierarchy of activity and practice. See the table below.

Human activity and social practice are extremely complex, the hierarchy is a great thinking tool for understanding them. Based on perspectives from activity theorists and other researchers, I found there is an eight-level hierarchy of activity and practice. The six mid-levels are adopted from activity theorists. The top level is adopted from anthropologist Morris Opler (1945). The low level is adopted from ecological psychologist James J. Gibson (1979).

I also classify these eight levels into three types: “logical level”, “actual level”, and “possible level”. We can call the logical level as ideal level too. I don’t have perfect terms to name these types.

On Mar 12, 2021, I published an article to introduce the concept of Supportance. I used the diagram below to discuss the actualization of supportances.

On April 2, 2021, I combined the above two diagrams and made a new diagram for the Ecological Practice approach.

The above diagram summarizes the core concepts of the Ecological Practice Approach. It is an expansive version of the Germ-cell version.

If we combine the “Possible — Actual — Logical” schema with the “Possible — Actual — Representation” schema, we see a new hierarchy of knowledge engagement and social life in general.

Possible
Actual
Logical
Representation

I call this new framework “Ecological Actualism”.

Let’s apply the Ecological Actualism Framework to the “Frame for Work” project which is about the ontology of knowledge framework.

Possible: many possible configurations of a theme network
Actual: a particular configuration of a theme network
Logical/Mental: a person perceives the particular configuration of a theme network as his/her mental model
Representation: he/she makes a diagram (or other cognitive objects) as the representation of the mental model

Moreover, if the representation is used, he/she or other people could perceive new possibilities of using the representation. In [Creative Diagramming] Graphic Space Affordances, Thematic Space, and Possible Paths, I have discussed many examples of using diagrams and knowledge frameworks.

In this way, we see a new cycle of “Possible — Actual — Logical/Mental — Representation”.

Thus, the “Ecological Actualism” framework is a dynamic developmental process. It is a cyclical process.

In contrast, the “Ecological Formism” framework is a hierarchical meaning central system. It is a nested structure.

3.4 An Ecological Approach to “Social (Cognition)”

Now we can put the “Ecological Actualism” framework and the “Ecological Formism” framework together. The outcome is an integrated ecological approach to social cognition. See the diagram below.