[Heartlogic-dev] Re: 3 ratings at a time

[William L. Jarrold]

FINALLY i am replying to this.

sheeeeeeeeeeshh it is a b o u t time.

On Wed, 25 May 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 00:36 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> > This is the most important question of this email:
> >
> > Joshua in your goal study, you believe that a goal pair corresponds to an
> > emotion or at least some kinda affective state, is that correct?
>
> Not an OCC emotion.  Perhaps a goal pair corresponds to an affective
> state.  However, the term "affective state" is not very specific.

Yes, affective state is not specfic.  That is why I like it.  It is vaguer
than "emotion" which raises the ire of many bc everyone fights over what
is an emotion.  OCC has their definition.

NOTE TO BILL: add to wiki (when it is up and assuming J does not 
disagree): "goal pair is an affective but not quite an emotional state. 
if an agent is in some sort of goal pair state, that has some sort of 
affective phenomenology that is distinct from other goal pairs."

> My preference is to emphasize that goals are a necessary component of
> any theory of emotion similar to the way that you emphasize in your
> dissertation that goal substitution is probably an important ingredient
> of any theory of emotion.

Sure.  Just about anyone would agree that goals are a necessary component
of emotion.  But why should they care about goal *pairs*?  So far, it 
seems to me that you are interested in a subspace of emotion.  In 
particular, empathy subspace.

NOTE TO BILL: add to wiki unless J disagrees: Goal pairs are an
important component to empathetic affective states.  E.g. Suppose Bob
and his best friend Fred are watching the New York Yankees in the
world series.  They are both Yankee fans.  Thus, YANKEE-WIN is a goal
proposition that they both have as a goal.  We might assert...

(wants Fred YANKEE-WIN)
(wants Bob YANKEE-WIN)

...Fred is in what we call a goal-gaol state with respect to
YANKEE-WIN and Bob.  Likewise, Bob is also in a gaol-gaol state.  Bob
is in a goal-goal state with respect to YANKEE-WIN and Fred.

In general, any agent AGENT is in a goal-goal state if:

(and
        (wants AGENT PROPOSITION)
        (wants OTHER-AGENT PROPOSITION)
        (different AGENT OTHER-AGENT)
        (consciously-focusing-on AGENT  (wants OTHER-AGENT PROPOSITION)))
        (consciously-focusing-on AGENT  (wants AGENT PROPOSITION)))

...In other words, if an agent wants some state of affairs to obtain,
is focusing on that wanting AND if another agent wants the same state
of affairs to obtain AND if the first agent is focusing on that fact,
THEN that (first) agent is in a goal-goal state (with respect to PROP
and other agent).

END OF WIKI ENTRY.

Phew that's complicated.  I don't know if the above is helpful or
mental masturabtion but let's let it sit and see where it takes us.

And, as always Joshua, if I am some how misconceiving this, let me know.

So, now the question is what is a goal-anti-goal state?  It seems to
me that this is basically the opposite of a goal-goal state.  If Fred
is in a goal/anti-goal state with respect to Bob then there is some
proposition PROP such that

(and
        (wants Fred PROP)
        (wants Bob (not PROP)))

> > E.g. a goal/goal state corresponds to what some might call a win/win.
>
> Yes.
>
> However, goal/goal is not specific enough because it remains to be
> determined whether the two goals can both be satisfied or whether they
> are mutually exclusive.
>
> The Jack and Jill story is probably win-win.  However, imagine a
> different story.  Suppose Jack and Jill are trying to reach the top of
> the hill first.  Either Jack or Jill can reach the top (Goal/Goal), but
> they both can't reach the exact top at the same time.

I sorta followed you except when you said...

"Either Jack or Jill can reach the top (Goal/Goal), but they both can't
reach the exact top at the same time."

...Hopefully you had a typo there?  Othewise we will probably have to
erase everything I have thought and start all over.... It seems to me
that in the "different Jack-n-Kill story (lets call it Anti-Jack-n-Jill)
the following is true...

(wants Jack JACK-REACH-HILLTOP-BEFORE-JILL)
(wants Jill JILL-REACH-HILLTOP-BEFORE-JACK)

JACk-REACH-HILLTOP-BEFORE-JILL implies (not JILL-REACH-HILLTOP-BEFORE-JACK)
and 
JILL-REACH-HILLTOP-BEFORE-JACK implies (not JACk-REACH-HILLTOP-BEFORE-JILL)

...therefore...

(wants Jack (not JILL-REACH-HILLTOP-BEFORE-JACK))

...therefore, Jack is in a GOAL-ANTIGOAL state.  Right?

Oh, also Jill is in a GOAL-ANTIGOAL state by a similar chain of
reasoning.

> Whether the two goals of goal/goal situations are mutually exclusive is
> a likely branch in the goal pair taxonomy.

I don't get this last sentence.  Why don't you draw a taxonomic tree
for me.

> Are you with me?
>
> > These affective states are sort of like the OCC Concern for Other's
> > states.  Is that right?
>
> Yes .. fortunes of other.

Good.

Bill add to wiki: The affective states defined by goal pairs are
similar to the fortunes of other's emotions.

> >   The difference between the OCC affective
> > states and your is twofold.  (1) there are 4 concern for other's
> > emotions in OCC but you have 9 possible goal-pair states.
>
> Yes, because OCC doesn't have anything like a NoGoal (or a Don't Care)
> state.

I believe it does have a NoGoal state.  OCC has the desirability
parameter.  If, for a given agent, the desirability of a state of
affairs is 0 and the undesirability of that state of affairs is 0 then
the that agent would be in a NoGoal state with respect to that state
of affairs.

Maybe you can defeat that claim of mine but I think chnaces are less
than 50%.  Whatever it seems like a red herring.

Perhhaps it is fair to say that OCC does not have a named "NoGoal"
state.

> >   (2) Ortony's
> > states simply involve a focusing on the outcomes of another agent.
> > Your states involve the simultaneous focusing in on of one's own goal
> > state plus some other persons goal state.  Is this correct?

I am now unlcear on what I meant in the paragraph labeled (2) above.
What I meant is probably unimportant.

> Yes, and another difference is that OCC looks at outcomes whereas I am
> looking at goals prior to any outcome.

Well, OCC does have the emotion Hope.  Hope is an emotion that is
prior to any outcome.
> > By the way there is a bug -- when goto e.g. JoshuaGoalBabyPilot and make a
> > change and then hit save, all is well.  But then when I go to hit edit
> > again it gives me a URL not found kind of error.  So, I click on home and
> > I get the same kind of error.  So, then I point my browser to "home" via
> > my ohl wiki bookmark.  Then I can (and here is the workaround for the bug)
> > go back to JoshuaGoalBabyPilot and successfully edit.
>
> OK, when I get some time then I'll move the wiki back to where it was
> working without bugs.  Sorry for all these hiccups.

PROGRESS!!! THis was fixed.

> > The 9 possible Goal Pairs Are Listed Below.  Examples are given in
> > selected cases.
>
> Sure, this is basically the goal of my study -- to gather believable
> examples of each combination of goals.

NOTE TO BILL: Add to wiki "the goal of this study is to gather
believable examples of each combination of goals."

> > > In the same way that OCC proposes a taxonomy of emotions, I aim to
> > > assemble a taxonomy of goal pairs.  Moreover, the approach I am taking
> > > is falsifiable in contrast with the OCC theorizing approach.  My null
> > > hypothesis is that there won't be any recognizable pattern with respect
> > > to the stories corresponding to a particular goal pair category.
> >
> > I am having trouble groking the last sentence.
> >
> > The null hypothesis is psychology stats lingo for the hypothessis that
> > must be rejected by data gathering.  If the null hypothesis (or no sig
> > differences) is found to be rejectable, then our best interpresttaion is
> > the "original" hypothesis.  My friend Deepa, now in Bombay, would be able
> > to word/explain this better.
>
> It sounds like you are complaining about the way I formed the sentence
> even though the meaning of the sentence is basically OK.  For what it's
> worth, I re-read the discussion of null hypothesis on wikipedia.

Okay, whatever.  I think resolving this is relatively unimportant.

> > I have put many apsects of ths discussion below on the wiki.
> >
> > Can you verify that what I have added to the wiki is correct?
>
> Looks good.

Great.

Phew.  Exhausted.

Time for bed.

Bill

> --
> If you are an American then support http://fairtax.org
> (Permanently replace 50,000+ pages of tax law with about 200 pages.)