Social interoception functions and the global body data market
https://doi.org/10.17726/philIT.2021.1.5
Abstract
The body-oriented approach in the philosophy of cognitive sciences is gaining in importance in the conditions of the formation of new high-tech contexts. The problem of interoception and integration of bodily data into socio-economic processes requires a comprehensive analysis and ethical assessment. This article examines the conceptual foundations of the body-oriented approach and its impact on the essence of cognitive processes. The main advantages and disadvantages of this approach are presented. We consider the methodological conflict zones of the bodily paradigm and traditional methodological attitudes of the cognitive sciences. The system ofinteroceptive sensations is a special «layer» of bodily experience. The social functions of interoceptive sensations are an interdisciplinary research area that focuses on the mechanisms of interaction between the private content of bodily experience and systems of social interaction. The regularity between interoceptive sensations and human behavioral patterns reflects the importance of examining bodily data. Today, the market for bodily data is just beginning to form, but at the same time it is already playing an important role in global digital transformation processes. A multitude of applications and wearable digital devices that track bodily activity and generate gigantic amounts of data are used today by millions of people around the world. The identification of bodily activity leads to the emergence of new forms of interaction between a person and socio-institutional systems, the specific properties of which are also considered in this article.
About the Authors
P. N. Baryshnikov
Pyatigorsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Baryshnikov Pavel N., Doctor of science (in Philosophy), assistant professor
Pyatigorsk
M. N. Atakuev
Pyatigorsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Atakuev Magomet N., 1-year postgraduate student
Pyatigorsk
References
1. Adolfi F., Couto B., Richter F., Decety J., Lopez J., Sigman M., Manes F., Ibáñez A. Convergence of interoception, emotion, and social cognition: A twofold fMRI meta-analysis and lesion approach // Cortex. – 2017. – URL: http://doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2016.12.019.
2. Arnold A. J., Winkielman P., Dobkins K. Interoception and Social Connection // Front. Psychol. – 2019. – URL: http://doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02589.
3. Barsalou L.W. Grounded Cognition // Annual Review of Psychology. – 2008. – No. 1, v. 59. – P. 617-645.
4. Bechara A., Damasio A.R. The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision. Games Econ // Behav. – 2005. – No. 52. – P. 336-372.
5. Cameron O.G. Interoception: the inside story – a model for psychosomatic processes // Psychosom Med. – 2001. – URL: http://doi:10.1097/00006842-200109000-00001.
6. Ceunen E., Vlaeyen J.W., Van Diest I. On the Origin of Interoception // Front Psychol. – 2016. – URL: http://doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00743.
7. Craig A.D. Human feelings: why are some more aware than others? // Trends in Cognitive Sciences. – 2004. – V. 8. – P. 239-241.
8. Dunn B.D., Stefanovitch I., Evans D., Oliver C., Hawkins A., Dalgleish T. Can you feel the beat? Interoceptive awareness is an interactive function of anxiety- and depression-specific symptom dimensions // Behav Res Ther. – 2010. – URL: http://doi:10.1016/j.brat.2010.07.006.
9. Durlik C., Tsakiris M. Decreased interoceptive accuracy following social exclusion // Int. J. Psychophysiol. – 2015. – No. 96. – P. 57-63. – URL: http://doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.02.020.
10. Fauconnier G. Mappings in thought and language. – Cambridge, U.K., New York, NY, USA // Cambridge University Press. – 1997. – P. 205.
11. Ferri F., Ardizzi M., Ambrosecchia M., Gallese V. Closing the Gap between the Inside and the Outside: Interoceptive Sensitivity and Social Distances // PLoS ONE. – 2013. – No. 8(10). – URL: http://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075758.
12. Fotopoulou A., Tsakiris M. Mentalizing homeostasis: The social origins of interoceptive inference // Neuropsychoanalysis. – 2017. – URL: http://doi:10.1080/15294145.2017.
13. Gao Q., Ping X., Chen W. Body Influences on Social Cognition Through Interoception // Front Psychol. – 2019. – URL: http://doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02066.
14. Garfinkel S.N., Seth A.K., Barrett A.B., Suzuki K., Critchley H.D. Knowing your own heart: distinguishing interoceptive accuracy from interoceptive awareness // Biol Psychol. – 2015. – URL: http://doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.11.004.
15. Grynberg D., Pollatos O. Perceiving one’s body shapes empathy // Physiol Behav. – 2015. – URL: http://doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.12.026.
16. Herbert B.M., Pollatos O. The Body in the Mind: On the Relationship Between Interoception and Embodiment // Top Cogn Sci. – 2012. – URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22389201.
17. Johnson M. The meaning of the body // Chicago: University of Chicago Press. – 2007. – 308 p.
18. Kandasamy N., Garfinkel S.N., Page L., Hardy B., Critchley H.D., Gurnell M., Coates J.M. Interoceptive Ability Predicts Survival on a London Trading Floor // Sci Rep. – 2016. – URL: http://doi:10.1038/srep32986.
19. Kaschak M., Glenberg А. Constructing Meaning: The Role of Affordances and Grammatical Constructions in Sentence Comprehension // Journal of Memory and Language. – 2000. – V. 43. – P. 508-529.
20. Khalsa S. S., Adolphs R., Cameron O.G., Critchley H.D., Davenport P.W., Feinstein J.S., et al. Interoception and mental health: a roadmap // Biol. Psychiatry Cogn. Neurosci. Neuroimag. – 2018. – V. 3. – P. 501-513. – URL: http://doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.12.004.
21. Mager A., Mayer K. Body data-data body: Tracing ambiguous trajectories of data bodies between empowerment and social control in the context of health. – 2019. – No. 8. – URL: http://doi:10.15203/momentumquarterly.vol8.no2.p95-108.
22. Mahon B.Z., Caramazza A. What drives the organization of object knowledge in the brain? // Trends in Cognitive Sciences. – 2011. – No. 3. V. 15. – P. 97-103.
23. Northoff G. Unlocking the Brain: Volume 2: Consciousness. – New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. – P. 509-529.
24. Powers K.E., Heatherton T.F. Characterizing socially avoidant and affiliative responses to social exclusion // Front. Integr. Neurosci. – 2012. – URL: http://doi:10.3389/fnint.2012.00046.
25. Quadt L., Critchley H.D., Garfinkel S.N. The neurobiology of interoception in health and disease: neuroscience of interoception. // Ann. N.Y. – 2018. – Acad. Sci. 1428. – P. 112-128. – URL: http://doi:10.1111/nyas.13915.
26. Rabinow P. Artificiality and enlightenment: from sociobiology to biosociality. in Essays on the Anthropology of Reason. – Princeton: Princeton University Press. – 1996. – P. 91-111.
27. Saukko P. Digital health – a new medical cosmology? The case of 23andMe online genetic testing platform // Sociology of Health & Illness. – 2018. – No. 40(8). – P. 1312-1326.
28. Shah P., Hall R., Catmur C., Bird G. Alexithymia, not autism, is associated with impaired interoception // Cortex. – 2016. – URL: http://doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2016.03.021.
29. Thelen E., Smith L.B. A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. – Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996. – 376 p.
30. Werner N.S., Duschek S., Mattern M., Schandry R. Interoceptive sensitivity modulates anxiety during public speaking // J. Psychophysiol. – 2009. – V. 23. – P. 85-94. – URL: http://doi:10.1027/0269-8803.23.2.85.
31. Wilson M. Six views of embodied cognition // Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. – 2002. – No. 4. – V. 9. – P. 625-636.
32. Wilson R.A., Foglia L. Embodied Cognition // The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. – 2017 (ed. Edward N. Zalta. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University).
33. Agafonov A.Y. Foundations of the semantic theory of consciousness. – SPb.: Rech’, 2003. – 296 p.)
34. Glazkov K.P. Bodily presence in geolocation games. Part 1 // Sociologija vlasti. – 2017. – No. 3. – URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/telesnoe-prisutstvie-v-geolokatsionnyhigrah-chast-1 (date of access: 03.06.2021.)
35. Lakoff J. Women, fire and dangerous things. – M.: Gnosis, 2011. – 512 p.)
36. Nagornaya A.V. Methodological foundations of the linguistic study of interoception // Problemy istorii, filologii, kul’tury. – 2014. – No. 1(43). – URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/metodologicheskie-osnovy-lingvisticheskogo-izucheniyainterotseptsii (date of access: 03.04.2021.)
37. Sechenov I.M. Reflexes of the brain // Izbrannye proizvedenija. – M.: Ed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1952. – T. 1. – P. 7-127.)
38. Tkhostov A. Sh. Psychology of bodyness. – M.: Smysl, 2002. – 287 p.)
Review
For citations:
Baryshnikov P.N., Atakuev M.N. Social interoception functions and the global body data market. Philosophical Problems of IT & Cyberspace (PhilIT&C). 2021;(1):83-98. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17726/philIT.2021.1.5
Views:
1217
Email this article 