Shared Understanding
It is advantageous to the group if everyone can agree on the identity and meaning of objects.
Building off of the previous post:
There is an interesting family resemblance between, on the one hand, individual representations and We-representations, and, on the other hand, egocentric and allocentric spatial frames of reference (Burgess, 2006). The individual representation is equivalent to an egocentric frame of reference in the way that it links the individual to objects in his or her environment: "This is where the object is in relation to me." This representation guides you when your brain decides whether to reach for an object with your left or your right hand. You, at your conscious level, will often be entirely unaware of which choice your brain has made at the unconscious level.
What about the allocentric frame of reference? In this frame of reference, objects are related to one another rather than to the self. For example, I might represent the mug as being near the edge of the table rather than near my left hand. I might also represent the object as being to the north rather than to the left of me. At first sight, there might seem little similarity to a We-representation. There is nothing specifically social about such a representation, but the key feature of the allocentric frame of reference is that it is independent of any particular viewpoint. This means that the representation is the same for all the people present. It is effectively a We-representation, ideally suited for group endeavors. One prediction to be explored is that people will put more weight on allocentric representations when they are in the presence of others. . . .
The allocentric frame of reference associated with object recognition provides a basis for a shared understanding of what objects are. Human groups take this a step further and imbue objects with meaning as well as identity. It is advantageous to the group if everyone can agree on the identity and meaning of objects such as predators or prey.
