What explains the skill and effectiveness of perceiving and acting? Cognitive accounts often appeal to rules, and ecological accounts often appeal to laws and goals to explain how actions can be right: directed, coordinated, timely, functional, and flexible. Three ecological approaches are considered which claim that perceiving and acting rightly is a matter of seeking to realize values in a meaningful world. The third of these, ecological values-realizing theory, is described in greater depth and briefly illustrated with respect to driving, vision, and conversing. Questions about the ability of physics and biology to explain the rightness of acting and perceiving are explored. In both cases, the tables are turned; rather than the rightness of animate actions being subsumed under physical mechanics or biological control, the agency of animate actions comes to the fore. Goal-directed, rule-following, or affordance-realizing actions can be treated as forms of rightness but are too limited to account for skills outside of a larger context of values. The evidence considered suggests that agency is directed at realizing values, which are best defined at the level of ecosystems.
BallP. (2023a). How life works: A user’s guide to the new biology. University of Chicago Press.
2.
BallP. (2023b). Organisms as agents of evolution. John Templeton Foundation.
3.
BlumbergM. S. (2017). Development evolving: The origins and meanings of instinct. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, 8(1–2), 10.1002/wcs.1371. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1371
4.
BruinebergJ.WithagenR.van DijkL. (2024). Productive pluralism: The coming of age of ecological psychology. Psychological Review, 131(4), 993–1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000438
CostallA.StillA. (1989). Gibson’s theory of direct perception and the problem of cultural relativism. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 19(4), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1989.tb00159.x
Di PaoloE. A.BuhrmannT.BarandiaranX. E. (2017). Sensorimotor life: An enactive proposal. Oxford University Press.
9.
GavriletsS.RichersonP. J. (2017). Collective action and the evolution of social norm internalization. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(23), 6068–6073. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1703857114
10.
GibsonJ. J. (1950). The perception of the visual world. Houghton-Mifflin.
11.
GibsonJ. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton- Mifflin.
12.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton-Mifflin.
13.
GibsonJ. J.GibsonE. J. (1955). Perceptual learning: Differentiation or enrichment?Psychological Review, 62(1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048826
14.
GivónT. (1989). Mind, code and context: Essays in pragmatics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
GumpR. D. (1972). Rule-governed linguistic behavior. De Gruyter Mouton.
16.
HeftH. (1989). Affordances and the body: An intentional analysis of Gibson’s ecological approach to visual perception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 19(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1989.tb00133.x
17.
HodgesB. H. (2007a). Good prospects: Ecological and social perspectives on conforming, creating, and caring in conversation. Language Sciences, 29(5), 584–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.01.003
18.
HodgesB. H. (2007b). Values define fields: The intentional dynamics of driving, carrying, leading, negotiating, and conversing. Ecological Psychology, 19(2), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407410701332080
19.
HodgesB. H. (2009). Ecological pragmatics: Values, dialogical arrays, complexity, and caring. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(3), 628–652. https://doi.org/10.1075/p&c.17.3.08hod
20.
HodgesB. H. (2014a). Rethinking conformity and imitation: Divergence, convergence, and social understanding. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 726. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00726
HodgesB. H. (2017a). Carrying, caring, and conversing: Constraints on the emergence of cooperation, conformity, and language. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 18(1), 26–54. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18.1.02hod
23.
HodgesB. H. (2017b). Conformity and divergence in interactions, groups, and culture. In HarkinsS.WilliamsK.BurgerJ. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social influence (pp. 87–105). Oxford University Press.
24.
HodgesB. H. (2019). Resisting knowledge, realizing values, and reasoning in complex contexts: Ecological reflections. Theory & Psychology, 29(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319852423
25.
HodgesB. H. (2023a). Values, affordances, and agency: Giving heft to ecological accounts. In Heras-EscribanoM.Segundo-OrtinM.RajaV. (Eds.), Places, sociality, and ecological psychology: Essays in honor of Harry Heft (pp. 99–111). Routledge.
26.
HodgesB. H. (2023b). Values define agency: Ecological and enactive perspectives reconsidered. Adaptive Behavior, 31(6), 559–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/10597123221076876
27.
HodgesB. H.BaronR. M. (1992). Values as constraints on affordances: Perceiving and acting properly. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22(3), 263–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1992.tb00220.x
28.
HodgesB. H.GeyerA. (2006). A nonconformist account of the Asch experiments: Values, pragmatics, and moral dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(1), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_1
29.
HodgesB. H.MeagherB. R.NortonD. J.McBainR.SroubekA. (2014). Speaking from ignorance: Not agreeing with others we believe are correct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(2), 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034662
30.
HodgesB. H.Rączaszek-LeonardiJ. (2022). Ecological values theory: Beyond conformity, goal-seeking, and rule-following in action and interaction. Review of General Psychology, 26(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211048174
31.
KleinS. B.CosmidesL.ToobyJ.ChanceS. (2002). Decisions and the evolution of memory: Multiple systems, multiple functions. Psychological Review, 109(2), 306–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.2.306
32.
KuhnT. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In KuhnT. (Ed.), The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 320–339). University of Chicago Press.
MartinJ. E.KleindorferG. B. (1991). The argumentum ad hominem and two theses about evolutionary epistemology: “Godelian” reflections. Metaphilosophy, 22(1&2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.1991.tb00812.x
37.
MartinJ. E.KleindorferG. B.BrashersW. R. (1987). The theory of bounded rationality and the problem of legitimation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 17(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1987.tb00088.x
38.
MartinJ. E.KleindorferG. B.BuchananJ. H. (1986). Piagetian reflections on legitimacy, justificationism, and learning theory. The Genetic Epistemologist, 14(4), 1–13.
39.
Martínez-KahnM.Martínez-CastillaL. (2010). The fourth law of thermodynamics: The law of maximum entropy production (LMEP). An interview with Rod Swenson. Ecological Psychology, 22(1), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407410903493160
40.
MichodR. E. (1993). Biology and the origin of values. In MichodR.NadelL.HechterM. (Eds), The origin of values (pp. 261–271). Aldine de Gruyer.
RajaV. (2019). J. J. Gibson’s most radical idea: The development of a new law-based psychology. Theory & Psychology, 29(6), 789–806. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319855929
43.
ReedE. S. (1988). James J. Gibson and the psychology of perception. Yale University Press.
44.
ReedE. S. (1996a). Encountering the world: Toward an ecological psychology. Oxford University Press.
45.
ReedE. S. (1996b). The necessity of experience. Yale University Press.
46.
RosenR. (2000). Essays on life itself. Columbia University Press.
47.
SchwartzS. H. (2016). Basic individual values: Sources and consequences. In BroschT.SanderD. (Eds.), Handbook of value: Perspectives from economics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology and sociology (pp. 63–84). Oxford University Press.
48.
SlobinD. I. (1979). Psycholinguistics (2nd ed.). Scott-Foresman & Co.
SwensonR. (2023). A grand unified theory for the unification of physics, life, information and cognition (mind). Philosophical Transactions Royal Society A, 381, 20220277. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2022.0277
51.
TalbottS. L. (2011). What do organisms mean?The New Atlantis, 30, 24–49.
52.
TalbottS. L. (2017). Evolution and the purposes of life. The New Atlantis, 51, 63–91.
53.
TulvingE. (1995). Memory: Introduction. In GazzanigaM. (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 751–753). MIT Press.
TurveyM. T. (2019). Lectures on perception: An ecological perspective. Routledge.
56.
TurveyM. T.ShawR. E. (1995). Toward an ecological physics and a physical psychology. In SolsoR. L.MassaroD. W. (Eds.), The science of the mind: 2001 and beyond (pp. 144–169). Oxford University Press.
57.
Van OrdenG. C.KelloC. T.HoldenJ. G. (2010). Situated behavior and the place of measurement in psychological theory. Ecological Psychology, 22(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407410903493145
58.
Von BertalanffyL. (1969). General systems theory. George Braziller.
59.
WalshD. M. (2015). Organisms, agency, and evolution. Cambridge University Press.
60.
WarrenW. H.Jr. (1988). Action modes and laws of control for the visual guidance of action. In MeijerO. G.RothK. (Eds.), Complex movement behavior: The motor-action controversy (pp. 339–380). Elsevier.
WithagenR.van der KampJ. (2010). Towards a new ecological conception of perceptual information: Lessons from a developmental systems perspective. Human Movement Science, 29(1), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2009.09.003
