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

[Joshua N Pritikin]

On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 01:21 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 00:36 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> >> 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."

Added.

> > 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.

Empathy is a good way to describe it.  However, I prefer to frame the
question in terms of joint attention because talking about goals in a
joint attentional scene is a much more precise way of describing it than
empathy.

> NOTE TO BILL: add to wiki unless J disagrees: Goal pairs are an
> important component to empathetic affective states.

Added.

>   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-goal 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

Yes and it also shows a misunderstanding.  Here is how I would fix it:

(and
        (wants AGENT PROPOSITION)
        (different AGENT OTHER-AGENT)
        (believes AGENT (wants OTHER-AGENT PROPOSITION)))

What I want to emphasize is that a goal-pair is not a global
state-of-the-world but a specific agent's state.  In particular,
if Fred has the goal-pair Goal/Goal WRT Bob then that does _not_
imply that Bob has the goal-pair Goal/Goal WRT Fred.

Again, I think relating goal-pairs to joint attention will reduce the
length of our discussion and provide better justification about why
I am structuring goal-pairs one way and not some other way.

I added this page to the wiki:

http://wiki.nirmalvihar.info/index.cgi?JoshuaGoalResearchQuestion

> 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)))

You are getting ahead of yourself here...

> >> 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-Jill 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)

I was talking about REACH-HILLTOP but here you are introducing
JACK-REACH-HILLTOP-BEFORE-JILL and JILL-REACH-HILLTOP-BEFORE-JACK.

We can talk about your new goal topics, but one at a time.  Perhaps we
could consider JACK-REACH-HILLTOP-BEFORE-JILL then later consider
JILL-REACH-HILLTOP-BEFORE-JACK.

But really we need to avoid this kind of confusion so it may help if you
add stories to the web site through the "Submit Story" button instead of
trying to do everything via email.  The Submit Story screen helps fit
stories into a joint attention structure.

> 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.

See my comment above.

> > 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.

I think I would be getting ahead of myself.  Let's stick with the 9
combinations for now (as you earlier added to the wiki).

> > 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.

Added.

> >>   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 chances are less
> than 50%.  Whatever it seems like a red herring.
> 
> Perhaps it is fair to say that OCC does not have a named "NoGoal"
> state.

I agree with your reply, especially the last sentence.
Fortunes-of-others emotions (p 92), don't prohibit a desirability of
zero but don't name an emotion which is contingent on a desirability of
zero either.

> > 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.

Yes, hope and fear are the exception.  Also, the appealing/unappealing
object reaction emotions are not outcome-oriented.  However, the
remainder OCC emotions depend on the result of some outcome.  I guess I
meant to say that the majority (18 of 22?) of OCC emotions look at
outcomes.

> >> 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."

Added.

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

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part