[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Heartlogic-dev] Re: putting it all together
William L. Jarrold
[Heartlogic-dev] Re: putting it all together
Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:09:37 -0600 (CST)
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:38:54PM -0600, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > > The hypothesis about how to combine appraisals has lots of independent
> > I am an enthusiastic supporter of testing the combinability of
> > appraisals.
> > We need to validate the notion of compound appraisals. This is one issue
> > that my dissertation explicitly leaves as future work. Am I wrong? If so
> > thank you for identifying a gap in the Conclusion chapter. If
> > so, Study 1 gets this point across, at least sorta kinda.
> I don't remember. I'd have to re-read your conclusions. I vaguely
> remember that you _do_ mention it. Maybe.
> > > Looking at your dissertation (and Kathryn Sanders 1989), some words
> > > are taken as primitive such as give, receive, sell, and steal. These
> > > words can be defined by the combining hypothesis.
> > Huh? give, receive etc are actions. Not affective reactions. Right?
> These words _are_ affective actions. What is ownership? Recall the
> central tenet of cognitive appraisal theory: that situations do not
> have significance in of themselves, but only by virtue of an
> individual's interpretation.
Huh? So, what is *not* an interpretation? You are saying to own x
is an interpretation? Isn't vision intpretation?
I think cog appraisal theorists (hey, I know, lets call them CATs!)
will by definition posit that ownership is an affective interpretation.
> For example, consider land ownership. What does it mean? It means
> that I have the cognition: "I own this land." I am basically
> unchanged. The land remains unchanged. It is only because people are
> mad to own land that we write down our cognitions on pieces of paper
> and file them with a government registrar.
Okay, if I am understanding you correctly, you are trying to define
"primitives" such as buy, steal, give, marry, and hit. Right?
Specifically you are trying to define these primitives by the
"combining hypothesis (CH)." By CH, I am assuming that you mean the
hypothesis that appraisals can be combined to form new (compound)
appraisals....But this seems awefully circular. Pathologically
circular. We've got atomic appraisals here somewhere, and these
form compounds...And somewhere we've got a complex mix of these
compounds and atoms over here...And some of the bits in that mix
are special bits...Quite complex compounds that are really "primitives"
such as "own", "buy", "steal".
I'm getting baffled again.
I hope you are you turing into a deconstructionist? Or a communist?
Yee gads. (-;
Also, I don't think we are mad to own land...I think many people
who own land are rather calm and happy.
> > I'm kinda brainstorming other potential directions to make sure you
> > really have thought about these and still persist in the direction of
> > #$Protest and friends.
> Yah, I definitely want to help integrate our trivial model with large
> commonsense ontologies.
> However, I will also stubbornly pursue my
> combining hypothesis. If you can believe it, this combining
> hypothesis dates back before the beginning of the Aleader project.
> Only now I feel like I am successful in explaining it to you.
Hrm. Sorry I'm so slow.
> > > So yah, "What are people going to rate?" Good question,
> > Damn right it is a good question. It is an *essential* question.
> > Think of your items. Also, think of your data tables. How will they look
> > like in a final article. Also, spell out your testable (i.e.
> > operationalizable hypotheses...e.g. see my H1, H2, etc things in
> > my diss).
> The hard part is just setting up the experiment. Take a look at my
I read it. Once. It did not penetrate. But, at least I finally
responded. Why don't you respond to my response and make sure the pointer
appears in the response. Hopefully I'll have a look.
I'm still fearful that this is quite ungainly. And that better
bang for our effort would be put into making a working KM model on
the website. (And of course, I have to get you all the 12 surveys
given to each of 12 groups in study 3 so that we get on with the
> > > First, we get ratings of each appraisal from every point of view (for
> > > each #$appraising-agent for each #$mindreader). Then we take
> > > believable pairs of appraisals, combine them and rate believability of
> > > the hypothesis output.
> > How do we combine them? Simply add them? In what order?
> See the mock-up for examples.
> > > Add in experimental manipulation
> > What are the independent variables:
> > o Valence reversal
> Yah, basically. There are nine categories of appraisal pairs which we
> can map to affective actions. The equivalent of valence reversal
> would be to just map them the "wrong" way.
Hrm. To do a valid stat analysis, this may require HUGE numbers of
subjects. Might be a good exercise to fully grok the explanatuion of
the statistical analysis that I did in my diss. I took pains to make
it understandable. I need to do so meself.
> > o whether the appraisal is compound vs atomic, and
> > if it is atomic then
> > is it #$appraisingAgent 1 vs 2
> > or
> > is it #$mindreader 1 vs 2
> Uh, no, not like that. The proposal only deals with pairs of
Hmm. I've lost the thread here...As a friendly reminder, given
my internship, I'll get big enough windows of time to dig into
these long emails about maybe 1 x per month. Anything you
can do to e.g. maybe nurse me along, send me littler nugget
each day by be a way to increase efficiency. Then again, maybe
it is not cost effective to chop it up. What-ever!
> > > Am I going too fast?
> > Nope. I might rather see how happy and sad combine. When do they
> > neutralize? When does one trump the other. I'd rather do this,
> > before testing for which atoms combine and how such atoms combine
> > to form #$Protests and its ontological kin.
> OK, but I argue that combining happy and sad is more sophisticated
> than what I am proposing. There is no conflicting affect in my
> combinations. I am combining perspectives, not affects.
Well, I'd still rather try over substitute objects than....
apple -> banana or cookie -> Toby gets to stay up and watch TV.
or train ride -> car ride.
...but rather arbitrary pairs of objects, one substituting for the other.
> A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://openheartlogic.org