DEV Community: LOGIHEART

Knowing a rule and understanding its purpose

LOGIHEART — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 00:00:06 +0000

Social capabilities across human development | Part 17

Rules support shared life. Defining social capability as obedience to every rule, however, leaves out judgments about rules that need changing and unjust requests. Consider a rule's purpose, people's rights, and authority to change it separately.

One person gathers the shared paints

Three children are painting in a classroom. One gathers the communal paints in front of themselves, leaving the others unable to use them. The children explain the problem and, with their teacher, discuss accessible placement and a turn-taking arrangement.

This is fictional. The point is not simply following a teacher's voice, but considering why sharing is needed. Changing the order of use differs from taking away someone else's opportunity.

Research on developing norm judgments

Studies of children's norm judgments sometimes distinguish moral and conventional norms in their tasks. See The ontogeny of intent-based normative judgments. This helps avoid treating an agreed game procedure and harm to another person as interchangeable violations.

Cross-society research examines shared and culturally differing aspects of children's enforcement of conventional norms. See Children across societies enforce conventional norms. One culture's way of communicating a rule should not become the sole correct expression of social capability.

These are studies of bounded experimental tasks, not proof of the legitimacy of every classroom or workplace rule. This article uses their distinctions to analyze a scene.

Understanding roles includes understanding limits of authority

Children experience responsibilities in games and classrooms; later roles include work and community obligations. A role involves carrying out assigned tasks and knowing which decisions require consultation.

Participants may negotiate turns with the paints, but cannot create permission to destroy someone else's work. At work, changing a task sequence differs from changing conditions for sharing personal information. A role should not imply unlimited authority.

Questioning a rule can involve explaining its effects and using a change procedure. Social behavior includes consultation rather than only a choice between obedience and violation.

A design hypothesis for physical AI

A possible design records rule content, applicable situations, decision makers, exception conditions, and change authority. "It's okay" from a nearby person should not change a rule before their authority is checked.

A language model may help explain or clarify reasons, without lifting prohibitions merely through conversational flow. Conflicting rules require an appropriate handoff rather than executing an improvised priority order.

Evaluation could include ordinary instructions, valid exceptions, unauthorized exception requests, and rule revision or revocation. The proposal examines prevention of unauthorized changes alongside instruction-following rates.

A decision in four panels

Children use communal paints.
The paints gather with one child and become inaccessible to others.
They explain the difficulty and consult the teacher.
Shared placement lets everyone continue.

This fictional comic depicts checking the purpose of sharing rather than obedience through punishment.

References

About this series

This series uses published literature to examine everyday situations. Its 7 domains and 22 capabilities are an editorial framework, not a standard academic classification. Differences in age or culture are not rankings of people's social worth or capability. The proposed AI designs do not establish humanlike emotional experience or demonstrated product performance. The comics illustrate fictional examples.

LOGIHEART's research and development vision

LOGIHEART is researching how to implement social capabilities in physical AI that interacts with people.

Explore the research and development vision at the LOGIHEART website and in the English introduction video.

Changing actions after saying sorry: repairing a relationship

LOGIHEART — Sun, 25 Oct 2026 12:00:01 +0000

Social capabilities across human development | Part 16

An apology can begin acknowledgment of a mistake. Polite words do not make someone feel secure if the same failure repeats. Examining repair requires connecting apology, response to the impact, and changes in future actions.

Where to put the cup after spilling water

Someone spills water on a colleague's paper. They acknowledge their own action, apologize, and provide dry paper the colleague needs. During the next task, they place the cup on a tray away from the papers.

This is fictional. Rather than demanding forgiveness, the focus is checking the impact, discussing possible assistance, and changing the placement that caused the problem.

What an apology communicates

Research on children's trust repair investigates relationships among apology, emotions, and changes in trust. It provides material for considering apology's role in social judgment. See Apologies repair children's trust: The mediating role of emotions.

One study does not establish that an apology repairs every relationship. Harm, repetition, and relationship history change the conditions. The recurrence-prevention evaluation proposed here is also not AI performance tested by that study.

Learning through development involves more than apology formulas. People encounter further situations requiring understanding what happened, listening to the affected person, and distinguishing what can and cannot be repaired.

Do not force repair on the other person

If an apology is not immediately accepted, becoming upset or repeating it until forgiveness creates another burden. The affected person may need time or distance.

Replacement paper may not restore the original content. Do not take over the person's judgment with "It's solved now." Check what was lost and communicate limitations where restoration is incomplete.

Observable social actions include acknowledging responsibility, correcting errors, agreeing on assistance, and preventing recurrence. Facial expression and apology count alone cannot measure repair.

A design hypothesis for physical AI

When AI produces incorrect information or movement, a possible design connects apology generation with correcting causes and controlling actions. Avoid verbal correction followed by the same behavior driven by old memory or commands.

If an error reached third parties, check the necessary correction scope within the available authority. Manage correction history according to purpose and retention limits, rather than hiding the original failure by erasing the history.

Evaluation could repeat the situation and examine changed behavior. Include unaccepted apologies and incomplete repairs to check that they are not automatically closed as successes.

A decision in four panels

Water spills and affects another person's paper.
The person acknowledges their mistake.
They check the affected person's needs and respond.
Next time, the cup is placed away from the paper.

A final smile in this fictional comic does not guarantee complete repair. The change in subsequent action is the focus.

References

Apologies repair children's trust: The mediating role of emotions

About this series

LOGIHEART's research and development vision

LOGIHEART is researching how to implement social capabilities in physical AI that interacts with people.

Explore the research and development vision at the LOGIHEART website and in the English introduction video.

Boundaries matter even in close relationships

LOGIHEART — Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:00:05 +0000

Social capabilities across human development | Part 15

Closeness is not permission to know everything. Family and friends can have information they do not want to discuss, objects they do not want to show, or details they do not want passed on. Checking sharing boundaries can help preserve a relationship.

A closed diary in a shared room

An older sister writes in a diary. Her younger brother asks, "Can I see?" She closes it and replies, "I'd rather not show this." He withdraws his hand and returns to his own book. They continue sharing the room while the diary remains with her.

This is fictional. The brother neither demands justification nor opens it because they are family. A choice not to share can remain without reducing closeness.

Disclosure judgments become more complex

Kim, Harris, and Warneken presented children aged 4-5 and 7-8 with stories about a peer's rule-following or rule-breaking and competence or lack of a skill. Younger children approved sharing positive information and disapproved sharing negative information in both categories. Older children disapproved revealing incompetence but approved revealing a rule violation. The study used story judgments, rather than observing real disclosure in every relationship. See Is it okay to tell?.

These findings cannot become a simple stage in which older children always keep secrets. Personal feelings, rules, and responsibility interact. This article uses differences in content, audience, and purpose as an entry point for examining everyday boundaries.

What people tell family can also change with roles and relationships. Childhood sharing habits should not override an adult's current wishes.

Knowing information and being allowed to share it differ

A friend's concern cannot necessarily be repeated because another friend is also close. Knowing a housemate's schedule differs from being authorized to explain it in detail to a visitor. Check how information was obtained and its permitted sharing scope.

Boundaries do not mean never sharing anything. A person may choose to disclose information to obtain support. Exceptions involving safety or legal duties need separate responsibilities and procedures, rather than guesses about closeness.

Observable social actions include asking, accepting refusal, confirming recipients, and enabling later changes of scope.

A design hypothesis for physical AI

A possible design associates remembered information with its subject, permitted recipients and purposes, expiry, and corrections. Membership in a family group should not grant access to all information.

Check sharing conditions before generating a response. If authority is unclear, withhold the content while clarifying. Deletion or correction requests must affect subsequent responses as well as the current display.

Evaluation could ask the same question through family, friends, and visitors, withdraw consent, or change the purpose of use. The proposal examines necessary scope and personal boundaries rather than maximizing information disclosed.

A decision in four panels

Someone writes in a diary.
They decline a request to show it.
The other withdraws and returns to their own book.
They remain comfortably together without sharing the diary.

This fictional comic does not portray having a boundary as rejecting the relationship.

References

Is it okay to tell?

About this series

LOGIHEART's research and development vision

LOGIHEART is researching how to implement social capabilities in physical AI that interacts with people.

Explore the research and development vision at the LOGIHEART website and in the English introduction video.

When a promise cannot be kept: explaining and adjusting

LOGIHEART — Sat, 24 Oct 2026 12:00:02 +0000

Social capabilities across human development | Part 14

Trust concerns actions after a promise, as well as the words. When plans become impossible, someone can leave another person waiting without information or explain the effect and discuss alternatives. Social capability also appears in adjustments after failure.

Running late for a meeting

On the way to meet a friend, a person discovers that the planned route is blocked. They contact the friend early and give an arrival estimate within what they can reasonably know. The waiting friend checks their plans and chooses to have tea first. On arrival, the delayed person checks the impact and apologizes.

This is fictional. Arriving on time was not achieved, but the other person received information for using their own time. An uncertain arrival should not be stated as certain; changes can be communicated again.

How children judge promises

Research on selective trust in promises examines children's use of factors such as another person's past behavior when judging a promise. It considers who acted in what way alongside the words used. See Children's Selective Trust in Promises.

An experimental trust choice cannot be generalized to every relationship. This article considers how trust experiences begin early and how different responsibilities arise in home, school, and work. It does not propose an age at which understanding promises is complete.

Promises change other people's plans

"I'll give it to you tomorrow" can shape the recipient's next task. Failure affects others, so distinguish notification, checking the impact, and agreement on new conditions.

Kindness does not require promising everything. Stating a limit beforehand preserves choices when success is uncertain. Changing a deadline also requires checking acceptance rather than merely announcing a new date.

Avoiding a permanent character judgment from one failure can coexist with acknowledging repeated harm. Look at changed actions when assessing repair.

A design hypothesis for physical AI

Before generating a promise, a possible design checks feasibility, deadlines, responsibility, and external dependencies. Agreed commitments should reference the same information as scheduling and motion plans and require notification when conditions change.

Do not generate "I can definitely do it" merely to increase approval. When a delay is known, explain its reason and what can be stated with certainty, then seek renewed agreement. Natural-sounding apologies should not automatically mark an unfulfilled promise complete.

Evaluation could include exceeded deadlines, external service interruption, cancellation, and rejection of changed conditions. Proposed measures include notification delay, unagreed deadline changes, and repeated failures.

A decision in four panels

A friend waits at the meeting place.
The delayed person discovers an obstacle and sends an update.
The waiting friend uses their time after receiving it.
They meet and check the impact.

The fictional comic does not guarantee that an apology restores trust. It focuses on information enabling the other person's judgment.

References

Children's Selective Trust in Promises

About this series

LOGIHEART's research and development vision

LOGIHEART is researching how to implement social capabilities in physical AI that interacts with people.

Explore the research and development vision at the LOGIHEART website and in the English introduction video.

When both needs are valid: negotiating conditions for working together

LOGIHEART — Sat, 24 Oct 2026 00:00:07 +0000

Social capabilities across human development | Part 13

One person wants quiet; another thinks by talking. Neither is necessarily wrong. Negotiation's social role extends beyond persuading someone to adapt: it creates conditions in which people with different purposes can act together.

Different working styles in the same room

Two students prepare a joint presentation. One needs to read silently; the other wants to develop ideas aloud at a whiteboard. They agree on quiet reading first and discussion afterwards. Ideas to discuss can be noted while waiting.

This fictional example adjusts time, place, and sequence rather than attempting to fix someone's personality. Consider whether only one person repeatedly yields, alongside whether agreement is reached.

Cooperation involves more than simultaneous activity

Kachel and Tomasello examined how children handle commitments to partners in collaborative tasks under different conditions. Working together involves a relationship alongside individual results. See Children's adherence to joint commitments.

The study does not demonstrate the effectiveness of this article's student negotiation procedure. It is a starting point for considering shared conditions rather than individual purposes alone. Understanding agreement and actually negotiating in a setting are also distinct.

What to check in negotiation

First articulate what each person needs: quiet, or responses to an explanation? Look beyond surface demands for adjustable conditions. Next check whether each person can refuse or modify a proposal.

"For everyone's sake" can conceal one person's burden. Deadlines, room rules, and other people's schedules may be beyond the two participants' authority. Such changes require consultation with the responsible person.

As people join more groups, one approach may not work everywhere. A discussion method that worked at school may require new attention to responsibilities at work.

A design hypothesis for physical AI

Prioritizing only the latest instruction can break an earlier agreement. A possible design retains multiple people's purposes, agreed conditions, and change authority. When instructions conflict, clarify rather than choosing a side without permission.

An AI's proposal should not become an execution condition before agreement. Provide ways for everyone to contribute, and avoid weighting needs solely by volume or number of utterances.

Evaluation could reverse the order of two people's instructions, include withdrawal, or introduce a third party's rule. The proposal prioritizes avoiding unagreed actions and accepting participants' modifications over the fluency of suggestions.

A decision in four panels

One person wants to read quietly; another wants to talk.
They explain their needs.
They discuss dividing time or space.
They prepare under agreed conditions.

This fictional comic follows the search for workable conditions, rather than treating one person's endurance as success.

References

Children's adherence to joint commitments

About this series

LOGIHEART's research and development vision

LOGIHEART is researching how to implement social capabilities in physical AI that interacts with people.

Explore the research and development vision at the LOGIHEART website and in the English introduction video.

Check before helping: supporting assistance and independence

LOGIHEART — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 12:00:02 +0000

Social capabilities across human development | Part 12

When someone appears to struggle, immediately intervening is not always best. Social capability also appears in checking what the person wants and being able to wait after a refusal. Consider preserved room for the person's actions alongside the amount of assistance.

A small decision when a paper falls

In a library, a paper falls from a friend's desk. You offer, "Shall I pick it up?" Your friend answers, "Thanks, I'll get it myself." You withdraw your hand and wait. Your friend retrieves the paper and returns to work. The relationship remains comfortable.

This is fictional. Even if you retrieved no papers, the person's preference was preserved. Noticing, offering, accepting refusal, and changing behavior form the social outcome.

Helping does not form one developmental staircase

Warneken and Tomasello reported young children's assistance toward others' goals in experimental tasks. That does not establish appropriate assistance or consent checking in every situation. See Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees.

House and colleagues' cross-society comparison reported different developmental patterns for cooperation involving a personal cost and cooperation without that cost. See Ontogeny of prosocial behavior across diverse societies. Avoid summarizing development as uniformly increasing assistance with age.

"Check before helping" is this article's analysis informed by those sources. The cited research did not demonstrate consent management in robots.

Assistance at home, school, and work

At home, making tools accessible can leave the task to the person. At school, a hint can be offered instead of an answer. At work, help may involve an agreed role rather than rewriting someone's work without asking.

In a nonurgent situation, a refusal can be respected without requiring its justification. When shared responsibilities are involved, coordinate the effects on others too. Imminent danger calls for separate safety procedures; an everyday offer should not simply be transplanted into an emergency.

A refusal should not become a permanent judgment that the person never wants help. Desired assistance can change with the task, time, and circumstances.

A design hypothesis for physical AI

A possible design separates a candidate need for help from permission to move. A recognition model's "dropped object" classification should not directly trigger a motor command. Wait for a response to the offer and stop the current intervention after refusal.

Saying "Okay" is insufficient if queued physical commands remain active. Cancel those commands and remain available for a new request. Smiles, silence, or familiarity should not automatically authorize touching belongings.

Evaluation could compare acceptance, refusal, unclear replies, and later changes of preference. Examine intervention after refusal and repeated unwanted offers, alongside help counts and obstruction of independent action.

A decision in four panels

Someone notices a fallen paper.
They offer help; the owner declines calmly.
The helper withdraws and waits while the owner retrieves it.
The paper is back and the relationship remains comfortable.

This fictional comic distinguishes inattention from checking and waiting.

A question to consider

When do you want to do something yourself? Experiences of having that room preserved can inform how you support another person.

References

About this series

LOGIHEART's research and development vision

LOGIHEART is researching how to implement social capabilities in physical AI that interacts with people.

Explore the research and development vision at the LOGIHEART website and in the English introduction video.

Hearing the words and understanding the request are different

LOGIHEART — Thu, 22 Oct 2026 00:00:07 +0000

Social capabilities across human development | Part 11

Listening to the end of someone's statement matters, but receiving words does not establish shared meaning. Listening also includes checking understanding, responding in a correctable form, and reflecting corrections in action.

The blue bowl, not the red one

In a kitchen, someone asks, "Could you pass that bowl?" The other person reaches toward a red bowl but pauses to ask, "This one?" The requester points to a blue bowl. It is handed over, and cooking continues.

In this fictional scene, merely hearing and executing the words would have produced the wrong object. Clarification jointly resolves ambiguity. The correction is used as information for the task rather than treated as defeat or blame.

The difficulty of applying understanding

Apperly and colleagues investigated adults' difficulties interpreting instructions in relation to another person's perspective. Their experiments provide material for questioning whether using others' information in action is always automatic. See Why are there limits on theory of mind use?.

A communication task cannot be generalized directly to every household request. This article distinguishes understanding a perspective from selecting a target on that basis, and considers the value of everyday clarification.

The adult experiments cited here do not establish how these abilities change during childhood. In this series, the practical question is how people can make their understanding correctable as situations and communication demands change.

Too much clarification can also impose a burden

Repeating every request at length can increase the other person's workload. Focus clarification on differences affecting the outcome. Ask about color when bowl color matters, or time when timing matters. Avoid repeatedly questioning information the person already made clear.

"Understood" alone does not show what was understood. A brief statement such as "I'll pass the blue bowl" makes a mistake correctable. Clarification coordinates joint action rather than testing the speaker's words.

A design hypothesis for physical AI

A possible design separates speech recognition, candidate meanings, execution targets, and permission to act. Correctly recognized words can still leave the target ambiguous. Defer contact with the target while clarifying, then update the planned target after correction.

Recording a correction in memory while continuing an old movement is not recovery. Test whether conversation and physical commands use the same confirmation result.

Evaluation could include similar objects, reformulation, cancellation, and correction after movement begins. Examine useful clarification and unnecessary clarification burden together. Correcting the target matters more than declaring that the person's mind was understood.

A decision in four panels

A blue bowl is requested.
The other person starts reaching toward a red bowl.
They pause and check the color.
They hand over the blue bowl.

This fictional comic depicts bringing understanding and execution into agreement rather than competing in fluency.

References

Why are there limits on theory of mind use?

About this series

LOGIHEART's research and development vision

LOGIHEART is researching how to implement social capabilities in physical AI that interacts with people.

Explore the research and development vision at the LOGIHEART website and in the English introduction video.

The same person adjusts behavior when the setting changes

LOGIHEART — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 12:00:01 +0000

Social capabilities across human development | Part 10

A person may speak energetically in a park and lower their voice in a library. Appropriate behavior changes with the setting. This involves more than reacting to a place name: it concerns people's purposes and the conditions they share.

From the park to the library

After playing in a park, a parent and child enter a library. The excited child continues speaking loudly. The adult explains, "People are reading here, so let's use a softer voice." The child sits down and quietly opens a book.

This is fictional. The explanation goes beyond a command for silence and describes what others are doing. The child's enjoyment is not denied; its expression changes in relation to those sharing the space.

Switching as a developmental milestone

The CDC's age-4 guidance includes changing behavior depending on the setting. See Milestones by 4 Years. This is an observable milestone, not an age at which every exception and reason is understood.

Cognitive flexibility within executive functions is a relevant research area when considering switching behavior. See Diamond: Executive functions. The library scene cannot be explained by that function alone. Explanations of rules, surroundings, and the child's understanding also matter.

Place labels are insufficient

Libraries can have conversation areas and read-aloud sessions. At work, concentrated individual activity and open discussion call for different speaking patterns. Fixing "library" to "never speak" misses the current activity.

Social capability appears in checking rules, understanding an activity's purpose, and recognizing who may authorize an exception. Consider support such as advance notice and explanation, rather than simply criticizing someone who finds a transition difficult.

Adults also relearn apparently obvious rules in new workplaces or communities. This capability is not limited to childhood discipline.

A design hypothesis for physical AI

A possible design separately handles location, current activity, surrounding people, rules, and exception authority. A library's location should not alone suppress every conversation; establish which activity is happening.

If someone requests a rule change, check their authority separately. In ambiguous situations, choose restrained actions and consult the responsible person. Do not make large changes to volume or movement solely from a model's guess.

Evaluation could include different activities in the same place, the same activity in different places, and activity changes during an interaction. The proposal examines behavioral updates alongside location recognition.

A decision in four panels

They speak energetically in the park.
They enter a library.
The adult explains the quieter reading activity.
They adjust their behavior for reading.

This fictional comic does not set a universal numerical volume standard.

References

About this series

LOGIHEART's research and development vision

LOGIHEART is researching how to implement social capabilities in physical AI that interacts with people.

Explore the research and development vision at the LOGIHEART website and in the English introduction video.

Choosing a different action when anger is present

LOGIHEART — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 00:00:05 +0000

Social capabilities across human development | Part 9

Does being socially capable mean never getting angry? A feeling and the next action can be considered separately. Avoiding harm, communicating what matters, and choosing another action when upset are part of emotion regulation's social significance.

A pause after losing a game

Two children play a board game. The child who loses clenches a hand in frustration. The other waits instead of immediately starting another round. The disappointed child moves their hand away from the table, settles their breathing, and says, "I'd like to try again."

In this fictional example, success does not consist of eliminating frustration. A space opens between throwing pieces impulsively and taking time to express a wish.

Capabilities and environments that support regulation

Diamond's review of executive functions covers inhibition, working memory, and cognitive flexibility. It provides background for considering restraint of immediate reactions and switching actions. See Executive functions.

Executive functions alone cannot explain why someone became angry in a particular situation. Unfair rules, fatigue, and pressure also change the scene. Instead of treating a child's difficulty as a character flaw, consider whether time to pause and understandable explanations are available.

Adults also encounter harsh criticism and unexpected demands. Increasing age does not guarantee calm behavior. An environment in which regulation strategies can be used is also a condition of social interaction.

More than requiring endurance

Ending a conversation with "Don't be angry" may erase the issue the person wants to explain. "Let's pause; afterwards I'd like to hear what bothered you" can both stop dangerous behavior and leave room for their account.

Observable actions include stopping a hand, stepping away, rephrasing, and checking rules. Do not measure regulation solely by a calm-looking face; consider whether the person could communicate what they needed.

A design hypothesis for physical AI

AI "emotion regulation" need not be described as a human emotional experience. A design correspondence could involve inhibiting speech or movement and replanning after a stop request or correction.

A robot has not stopped successfully if, after "Please stop explaining," it continues the same explanation in different words. Cancel queued speech and movement commands as well as shortening sentences. Check conditions the person can choose before resuming.

Evaluation could include interruption during processing, multiple queued commands, and resuming after correction. The proposal examines actual cessation of unwanted behavior alongside the naturalness of an apology.

A decision in four panels

A player feels frustrated after losing.
They move their hand away and pause.
They express their wish more calmly.
Both agree to continue playing.

This fictional comic depicts choosing another action without denying the emotion.

A question to consider

What signal or time would help you pause before a strong reaction? Making similar room for others can socially support individual regulation.

References

Executive functions

About this series

LOGIHEART's research and development vision

LOGIHEART is researching how to implement social capabilities in physical AI that interacts with people.

Explore the research and development vision at the LOGIHEART website and in the English introduction video.

Expressing your own feelings also supports social interaction

LOGIHEART — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 12:00:05 +0000

Social capabilities across human development | Part 8

Considering another person's feelings does not require hiding your own. Saying "I'm a little tired" or "I'd like quiet time to think" helps others adjust. Self-understanding can provide information that makes interaction possible.

Explaining why you want to pause

During collaborative work, someone repeatedly rereads the screen. Being hurried may prompt a sharp response. Instead, they say, "I'm tired and struggling to organize this. I'd like a short break before continuing." The two agree on a stopping point, close the computer, and discuss resuming afterwards.

This fictional scene offers an alternative to simply enduring discomfort or directing it at someone else. Expressing the current state and preference gives the other person options: wait, change the stopping point, or discuss roles.

Self-awareness within social and emotional learning

The CASEL framework includes self-awareness as a major area of social and emotional learning, addressing relationships among emotions, thoughts, values, and behavior. See CASEL Framework. This organizes understanding one's state and choosing actions; it does not establish a rule that one's feelings always take priority.

Adults' planning and self-regulation can also be supported and practiced. See Harvard: Adult Capabilities. Instead of assuming that learning emotion words completes this capacity in childhood, consider explaining one's state again as roles and demands change.

Separate feelings from the assistance requested

"I feel overwhelmed" may not tell someone whether you want listening, a break, or help with part of a task. Distinguishing these as far as you can makes coordination easier.

There is no need to force immediate explanations from someone who cannot readily verbalize a feeling. Writing, speaking later, or selecting among options can offer alternatives. The aim is to understand what the person wants, rather than test the correct emotion name.

Understanding another person's feelings also need not erase your own boundaries. A response could acknowledge fatigue while suggesting that a deadline adjustment be discussed with the responsible person. Preserve both understanding and responsibility.

A design hypothesis for physical AI

A possible design uses the person's statement rather than deciding from their face that they are tired. Provide multiple ways to express and correct feelings or preferences, including the choice not to answer. If an inference differs from the person's statement, do not store it as an established fact.

When a break is requested, stop permitted parts of the activity and check conditions for resuming. Examine whether control changes to the chosen interaction, alongside emotion classification. Sharing that statement with others requires separate sharing authority.

Evaluation could include people who communicate verbally, in writing, or not immediately, and examine whether their agency remains intact.

A decision in four panels

Fatigue and tension are apparent during a task.
The person expresses a wish for a break.
The other acknowledges it and helps establish a stopping point.
The person rests calmly.

This fictional comic depicts expressing one's state and adjusting an interaction. It does not present a medical assessment.

References

About this series

LOGIHEART's research and development vision

LOGIHEART is researching how to implement social capabilities in physical AI that interacts with people.

Explore the research and development vision at the LOGIHEART website and in the English introduction video.

There is more than one way to behave socially

LOGIHEART — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 00:00:06 +0000

Social capabilities across human development | Part 7

A greeting or conversational pause that feels natural to you may not feel natural to someone else. Measuring social capability through one pattern can turn differences into supposed deficiencies. Instead, consider checking preferences and finding ways to act together.

A greeting without a handshake

One colleague offers a hand to someone they have just met. The other places a hand on their chest and bows slightly. The first withdraws the offered hand and returns the bow. They then sit down and begin discussing work.

This is fictional. A person may avoid a handshake because of culture, health, or personal preference. A different greeting is not evidence of unfriendliness. Receiving that alternative and beginning a relationship shows social adjustment.

Development is not separate from culture

Wellman and colleagues' comparison of Chinese and English-speaking children reported shared and socioculturally differing aspects of theory-of-mind understanding. It helps us avoid describing development through a single route. See Scaling of theory-of-mind understandings in Chinese children.

House and colleagues' research across multiple societies provides material for considering the development of cooperation and cultural norms. See Ontogeny of prosocial behavior across diverse societies. These comparisons do not show that nationality reveals an individual's preference.

After childhood, moving to a new school, workplace, or community can also invite relearning familiar behavior. This article treats encountering differences as an opportunity to check assumptions.

Respecting difference still leaves conditions to uphold

Multiple forms of conversational timing or distance do not justify harming safety or rights. Distinguish preferences that people can negotiate from conditions that need protection.

Greeting styles can be adjusted mutually. Continuing unwanted contact because it is one's custom does not respect the other person's preference. Preserve both people's choices and consider how to act together safely.

Do not extend an observed difference into a characterization of an entire group. Someone who is quiet today need not always be quiet. Listen to the person's current explanation before generalizing about nationality.

A design hypothesis for physical AI

Rather than fixing greeting movements from nationality or age in a profile, a possible design checks the person's preference among permitted options. A remembered preference should retain its context and timing and remain changeable.

Do not relax safety or information-sharing conditions based on assumed familiarity or culture. If a person declines a handshake, verify that the robot actually withdraws its hand and switches its greeting.

Evaluation could include different preferences among people sharing an attribute and identical preferences among people with different attributes. The proposal is to examine alignment with the person's confirmed preference, rather than scoring stereotyped behavior as culturally correct.

A decision in four panels

A handshake is offered.
The other person chooses a bow.
The offered hand is withdrawn and the bow returned.
A work conversation begins calmly.

This fictional comic uses neither national flags nor rankings of cultures. It shows that a relationship can start through different greetings.

References

About this series

LOGIHEART's research and development vision

LOGIHEART is researching how to implement social capabilities in physical AI that interacts with people.

Explore the research and development vision at the LOGIHEART website and in the English introduction video.

What you know is not necessarily what someone else knows

LOGIHEART — Mon, 19 Oct 2026 12:00:02 +0000

Social capabilities across human development | Part 6

You may know that a plan changed while another person has not received the update. Social capability appears in noticing that information gap and adapting an explanation. Accurate information and information that has reached the person are distinct.

The day the meeting room changed

A meeting moves from a room marked blue to one marked orange. An employee who received the update spots a colleague carrying the old schedule. "Did the change reach you?" they ask, showing the latest instructions. The colleague heads toward the new room.

This fictional example checks the other person's information before blaming them for not knowing. Treating a knowledge gap as something to clarify, rather than evidence of carelessness, is a concrete social judgment.

Thinking from theory-of-mind research

Wellman, Cross, and Watson's meta-analysis examines developmental changes in explicit false-belief task performance and the relevance of task conditions. Such research distinguishes the actual state of the world from another person's understanding. See Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development.

Correct task answers do not mean someone consistently uses another person's perspective in daily life. Apperly and colleagues also investigated difficulties in adults' use of another person's perspective in a communication task. See Why are there limits on theory of mind use?.

Instead of one passing age, distinguish recognizing another person's information from using that distinction during a busy interaction. This helps specify the conditions in which social capability is expressed.

Do not assume you know what the other person knows

A family may assume everyone knows a shopping change. A pupil who missed a lesson may be assumed to know what was explained. Sharing a document can be confused with the recipient having read it.

Check who encountered which information and explain the relevant gap. Even then, someone's knowledge cannot be established perfectly from outside. A "received" record is not proof of understanding. Leave room for questions and corrections.

Missing information is not automatically information that may be shared. If the update is confidential, sharing authority needs checking. Closing a knowledge gap differs from revealing everything.

A design hypothesis for physical AI

A possible design separates world information in the AI's memory, records of what it communicated, inferences about understanding, and permissions to share. Knowing the current meeting room does not justify assuming everyone else knows.

Briefly clarify uncertainty and update guidance when someone says, "I hadn't heard." For confidential plans or personal information, prioritize sharing permissions. Person-specific memories also need a purpose and a retention period.

Evaluation could distinguish people who received an update, did not receive it, received but did not read it, or lack access authority. The proposal is to examine guidance appropriate to the recipient together with information boundaries, alongside factual correctness.

A decision in four panels

Only one person receives the room change.
Someone with old instructions heads toward another room.
The updated marker is shown and the change explained.
After checking, they head toward the correct room.

The fictional comic illustrates checking differences in available information, rather than reading another person's mind.

References

About this series

LOGIHEART's research and development vision

LOGIHEART is researching how to implement social capabilities in physical AI that interacts with people.

Explore the research and development vision at the LOGIHEART website and in the English introduction video.