From MAILER-DAEMON Fri Aug 01 00:42:10 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19iRjt-0002g3-7z for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:42:01 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19iRjp-0002Sd-4v for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:41:57 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19iRix-0001SN-2U for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:41:05 -0400 Received: from [216.65.124.72] (helo=orb.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iRio-0000lO-4X for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:40:54 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (unknown [64.49.223.111]) by orb.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF6471562F6 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 00:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.216]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902D745366 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 00:40:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:10:32 +0530 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:10:32 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Message-ID: <20030801044032.GB619@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Aleader-dev] [billj@cs.utexas.edu: Re: your km model] X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:42:00 -0000 ----- Forwarded message from "William L. Jarrold" ----- From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin Subject: Re: your km model On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > I finally got up-to-speed enough with KM to go through the KM > model you did for your dissertation. Without going into detail, > I think a KR approach will work really well with Aleader. I'm > very excited about this research direction. Cool. > > I hope you find time to evalute Aleader. I am eager to hear > your feedback. Yes, I have lots to say but v little time. I played with it yesterday and took many notes. I didn't quite finish the tutorial but have reserved the laptop again for the soonest time I could -- Friday. Anyway, I'm hoping to email my comments soon. Yet this is a day with its usual load of distractions -- My car is in the shop and I have a post doc to apply to let alone trying to finish up my dissertation or do the perl programming for a prof at UT I am working on. Next week things will be worse -- internship starts. That's a 40 hr a week gig. Well, I'll find a way to keep at it. I spoke to my dissertation advisor and we might even be able to get a few human subjects official involved. Since this is not dissertation research and I am not faculty I'll be lower on the totem pole but hopefully we can get some subjects. Bill From MAILER-DAEMON Fri Aug 01 00:59:18 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19iS0c-0001Mw-5n for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:59:18 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19iS0Z-0001Mq-Jp for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:59:15 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19iS0Y-0001MQ-1r for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:59:14 -0400 Received: from [207.106.49.21] (helo=wink.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iS0X-0001MK-PX for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:59:13 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (texas.pobox.com [64.49.223.111]) by wink.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1646FE8C; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 00:59:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.216]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F76345366; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 00:59:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:29:07 +0530 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:29:07 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: "William L. Jarrold" Message-ID: <20030801045907.GC619@always.joy.eth.net> References: <20030730124540.GC745@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: direction & feedback X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:59:16 -0000 On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:14:41PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > I spoke to my dissertation advisor and we might even be able to get a few > human subjects officially involved. Since this is not dissertation research > and I am not faculty I'll be lower on the totem pole but hopefully we can > get some subjects. Sound great! I am eager to hear further details. Sorry to repeat myself again, but do you have any guidance about how to make Aleader more palatable to the academic community? ;-) One more thing, Nancy Alvarado suggested that I join Lola Canamero's emotion list-serve: http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~comqlc/emotion.html I tried to subscribe but I got rejected. When I asked why, I never got a reply. Since you presented at a conference chaired by Lola Canamero (AAAI Fall Symposium), you must be "in the know." Is this list only open to [fill-in-the-blank]? -- Victory to the Divine Mother!! after all, http://sahajayoga.org http://why-compete.org From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Aug 02 21:18:42 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19j7RG-00040o-Hy for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Aug 2003 21:13:34 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19j1FI-0002vk-7S for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 02 Aug 2003 14:36:48 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19j0z6-0007JH-VO for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 02 Aug 2003 14:20:35 -0400 Received: from [128.83.139.10] (helo=mail.cs.utexas.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19j0dG-0002az-Pe for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:57:30 -0400 Received: from thor.cs.utexas.edu (billj@thor.cs.utexas.edu [128.83.130.22]) by mail.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h72HvGGU015313; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:57:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from billj@localhost) by thor.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h72HvGDr009613; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:57:16 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 12:57:16 -0500 (CDT) From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin In-Reply-To: <20030801045907.GC619@always.joy.eth.net> Message-ID: References: <20030730124540.GC745@always.joy.eth.net> <20030801045907.GC619@always.joy.eth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org, "William L. Jarrold" Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: direction & feedback X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 01:13:33 -0000 On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:14:41PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > > I spoke to my dissertation advisor and we might even be able to get a few > > human subjects officially involved. Since this is not dissertation research > > and I am not faculty I'll be lower on the totem pole but hopefully we can > > get some subjects. > > Sound great! I am eager to hear further details. Sorry to > repeat myself again, but do you have any guidance about how > to make Aleader more palatable to the academic community? ;-) sure thing. actually, as you have probably noticed, i have utterly given up on trying to treat the conversation as one nice neat organized thread. so, on e of the side effects is that certain questions will get lost. thus, PLEASE repeat yourself, early and often. the squeeky wheel gets the grease. as for making it more palatable...yes, a coupla points. one it needs to be connected to existing literature. e.g. how does your theory compare/contrast to the OCC model (ortony clore and collins)....the more constructivfe attention you give to others work, the more you will get in return....e.g. ortony and clore have apaper, i think it is called "the referential structure of the affective lexicon" in which they go to great pains to decide what and what is not in the set of things that we call emotions. i think you need to address this. i believe there is a hole in the literature. there is a more general class of concepts that should be called "affective states". emotions are a focused subclass of these. ambandoned is a classic affective state which is not an emotion. you must have articulate a definition of the tokens that are within aleader and those that are not. clearly the concept dog is outside of your system. but what about nausea? you need clear or classic positive and negative exemplars of your category and you need to list some pos and neg exemplars that are near the border. you may even articulate some that are at the border -- i.e. ones for which you are currently agnostic. here's another way to respond to your question of how to make it more palatable to wider community... sorry, maybe i am still operating out of the sixth grade theory of social interaction, but as a friend said, the academic world is cliquey. one way to be more acceptable to the clique is to remove stuff like "o divine mother" and why-compete.com from your sig. there is an evangelistic or religious flair to your stuff. and the academic world wants to stay with science. they don't want to explicitly advocate buddhism, or any values based philosophy of life...therefore, try to separate these realms of your existence. present a pure science net persona and advocate any philosophy via different channels. sure, in a sense these realms are fundamentally inseparable, but if you can superficially keep them separate, then you will be doing fine. phil agre, last at ucsd, has a great website on intellectual networking. if you have trouble finding it lemme know. i have not read it in at least a year, but it was worthwhile. anothering thing about makijng this more palatable to academe...keep working with me! > > One more thing, Nancy Alvarado wow. how did you encounter her? > suggested that I join Lola > Canamero's emotion list-serve: > > http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~comqlc/emotion.html ah, yes. god i am such an idiot. i am only on aaron sloman's list -- much lower traffic. i must subscribe to this! thanks for the reminder. > > I tried to subscribe but I got rejected. When I asked why, I never > got a reply. S hmm...weird. could be the cliqueshness of academe or it could be just that she is busy and writing such an email is delicate and difficult and invites only more trouble. > ince you presented at a conference chaired by > Lola Canamero (AAAI Fall Symposium), you must be "in the know." > Is this list only open to [fill-in-the-blank]? i dunno. i am not in the know but keep after me on subscribing and i'll see what i find out. well, i really do have comments on my test run of aleader. checking out a laptop for this purpose takes about 30 minutes as did this response, so even though this seems to be going really slowly i think i am sticking to my original commitment of about 30 min per day of work. and that's better than a lot of other of my projects are getting. bill > > -- > Victory to the Divine Mother!! after all, > http://sahajayoga.org http://why-compete.org > From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Aug 03 02:38:27 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19jCLy-0007iM-Mw for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Aug 2003 02:28:26 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19jAAY-0004xE-Np for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sun, 03 Aug 2003 00:08:30 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19jAA0-0004o6-DQ for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sun, 03 Aug 2003 00:08:27 -0400 Received: from [216.65.124.72] (helo=orb.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19j8BI-0005UA-W0 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:01:09 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (unknown [64.49.223.111]) by orb.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D7615645D; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:01:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.237]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8C34535F; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:00:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 3 Aug 2003 07:30:52 +0530 Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 07:30:52 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: "William L. Jarrold" Message-ID: <20030803020052.GC618@always.joy.eth.net> References: <20030730124540.GC745@always.joy.eth.net> <20030801045907.GC619@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: direction & feedback X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 06:28:24 -0000 On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 12:57:16PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > > repeat myself again, but do you have any guidance about how > > to make Aleader more palatable to the academic community? ;-) I will implement more of a separation between the science & religion. Sometimes I don't know how far I need to go with this. Please nudge me if you see something obvious which I am missing (like my email sig). > e.g. how does > your theory compare/contrast to the OCC model (ortony clore > and collins) Yes, I put this at the top of my TODO list. The problem is that this book is hard to get in India. I ordered it, but it will still take a few weeks to reach me. > phil agre, last at ucsd, has a great website on intellectual networking. > if you have trouble finding it lemme know. i have not read it in at least > a year, but it was worthwhile. OK, added to my list. > anothering thing about making this more palatable to academe...keep > working with me! You bet! I've been working alone for _much_ too long. It's great to hear your point of view, even at 30 minute per day. ;-) > > One more thing, Nancy Alvarado > > wow. how did you encounter her? Web surfing. I found one of her papers. I read her web site. I just like her style. I email'd her some questions. She replied helpfully. > well, i really do have comments on my test run of aleader. checking out a > laptop for this purpose takes about 30 minutes as did this response, so > even though this seems to be going really slowly i think i am sticking to > my original commitment of about 30 min per day of work. and that's > better than a lot of other of my projects are getting. I remain eager to hear your comments. -- A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://www.nongnu.org/aleader From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Aug 04 20:58:25 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19jq7Y-0006lS-SY for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:56:12 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19jq7M-0006Xk-Dh for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:56:00 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19jq6e-0005PI-SZ for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:55:49 -0400 Received: from [128.83.139.10] (helo=mail.cs.utexas.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19jq6e-0005KG-2Z for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:55:16 -0400 Received: from thor.cs.utexas.edu (billj@thor.cs.utexas.edu [128.83.130.22]) by mail.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h750tCGU003848; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 19:55:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from billj@localhost) by thor.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h750tCHZ021946; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 19:55:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 19:55:12 -0500 (CDT) From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin In-Reply-To: <20030801045907.GC619@always.joy.eth.net> Message-ID: References: <20030730124540.GC745@always.joy.eth.net> <20030801045907.GC619@always.joy.eth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org, "William L. Jarrold" Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: direction & feedback X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:56:10 -0000 On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:14:41PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > > I spoke to my dissertation advisor and we might even be able to get a few <...> > > One more thing, Nancy Alvarado suggested that I join Lola > Canamero's emotion list-serve: > > http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~comqlc/emotion.html Thanks very much. I just tried to subscribe. I'll letya know what happened. Wow, I didn't know that Eric Mueller is into emotion. I can't believe it, I might actually have 20-30 minutes free so that I can send you the Aleader comments finally. Stay tuned. Bill > > I tried to subscribe but I got rejected. When I asked why, I never > got a reply. Since you presented at a conference chaired by > Lola Canamero (AAAI Fall Symposium), you must be "in the know." > Is this list only open to [fill-in-the-blank]? > > -- > Victory to the Divine Mother!! after all, > http://sahajayoga.org http://why-compete.org > From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Aug 04 21:50:36 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19jqyC-0003q7-1w for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:50:36 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19jqy9-0003pF-0I for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:50:33 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19jqxc-0003kB-4c for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:50:32 -0400 Received: from [128.83.139.10] (helo=mail.cs.utexas.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19jqxX-0003iu-4i for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:49:55 -0400 Received: from thor.cs.utexas.edu (billj@thor.cs.utexas.edu [128.83.130.22]) by mail.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h751nrGU009539; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:49:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from billj@localhost) by thor.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h751nrGK022640; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:49:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:49:53 -0500 (CDT) From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin In-Reply-To: <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> Message-ID: References: <20030729035533.GG619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1400903298-2055391603-1060048193=:21679" Cc: Sagar Behere , aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: tutorial X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:50:33 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --1400903298-2055391603-1060048193=:21679 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi, I am finally attaching my comments on the tutorial. They way they are written is sort of halphharzed. I first only put new stuff by commenting it out with % and putting at WLJ at the start of it. Then I did a big comment blurb with WLJ. Might be best to respond to that via email discussion rather than attachment. Then I went back and changed a few lines of the original text without adding any WLJ indicators figuring you can use a diff like tool to find 'em easy. Well I got to run, I have only a few picky wording comments in the rest of the manual but my comments in the big section are much much more important. Bill --1400903298-2055391603-1060048193=:21679 Content-Type: APPLICATION/x-texinfo; name="tutorial.texi" Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: Content-Description: Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="tutorial.texi" XGlucHV0IHRleGluZm8udGV4ICAgIEBjIC0qLXRleGluZm8tKi0KQGMgJSoq c3RhcnQgb2YgaGVhZGVyCkBzZXRmaWxlbmFtZSB0dXRvcmlhbC5pbmZvCkBz ZXR0aXRsZSBBbGVhZGVyLUNEIFR1dG9yaWFsCkBjICUqKmVuZCBvZiBoZWFk ZXIKQGMKQGMgSW1hZ2VzIHNob3VsZCB1c2UgdGhlIGZvbnQgImhlbHZldGlj YSAxMCIgZm9yIGNvbnNpc3RlbmN5LgpAYwpAY29weWluZwpDb3B5cmlnaHQg QGNvcHlyaWdodHt9IDIwMDMgSm9zaHVhIE5hdGhhbmllbCBQcml0aWtpbgog ICAgIApAcXVvdGF0aW9uCkNvcHlpbmcgYW5kIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGlvbiBvZiB0 aGlzIG1hbnVhbCwgd2l0aCBvciB3aXRob3V0IG1vZGlmaWNhdGlvbiwKaXMg cGVybWl0dGVkIGluIGFueSBtZWRpdW0gd2l0aG91dCByb3lhbHR5IHByb3Zp ZGVkIHRoZSBjb3B5cmlnaHQKbm90aWNlIGFuZCB0aGlzIG5vdGljZSBhcmUg cHJlc2VydmVkLgpAZW5kIHF1b3RhdGlvbgpAZW5kIGNvcHlpbmcKCkBkaXJj YXRlZ29yeSBFZHVjYXRpb24KQGRpcmVudHJ5CiogVHV0b3JpYWw6IChhbGVh ZGVyKS4gICAgICAgICAgIFR1dG9yaWFsIGZvciBBbGVhZGVyLTIwMDMwNzI2 CkBlbmQgZGlyZW50cnkKCkBjIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0KCkBpZnRleApA dGl0bGVwYWdlCkB0aXRsZSBBbGVhZGVyLUNEIFR1dG9yaWFsCiUgV0xKIG1h eWJlIGJldHRlciB0byBjYWxsIGl0IEdldHRpbmcgU3RhcnRlZCB3aXRoIEFs ZWFkZXIKQHN1YnRpdGxlIHZlcnNpb24gMjAwMzA3MjYKQGF1dGhvciBKb3No dWEgTi4gUHJpdGlraW4gKEBlbWFpbHtqb3NodWFAQHdoeS1jb21wZXRlLm9y Z30pCkBwYWdlCkB2c2tpcCAwcHQgcGx1cyAxZmlsbGwKQGluc2VydGNvcHlp bmcKQGVuZCB0aXRsZXBhZ2UKCkBjb250ZW50cwpAZW5kIGlmdGV4CgpAaWZ0 ZXgKQG1hY3JvIGltYm94IHtpbWcsIHNraXB9CkB2Ym94IHRvIDBwdHtAdnNr aXBcc2tpcFwgQGhib3h7XGltZ1x9QHZzc30KQGVuZCBtYWNybwpAZW5kIGlm dGV4CkBpZm5vdHRleApAbWFjcm8gaW1ib3gge2ltZywgc2tpcH0KXGltZ1wK QGVuZCBtYWNybwpAZW5kIGlmbm90dGV4CgpAYyAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t CgpAaWZub3R0ZXgKQG5vZGUgVG9wLCBUZW4gRWFzeSBDYXRlZ29yaWVzLCAo ZGlyKSwgKGRpcikKQHRvcCBUdXRvcmlhbAoKVGhpcyB0dXRvcmlhbCBpcyBh biBpbnRyb2R1Y3Rpb24gdG8gQWxlYWRlci4gIEl0IGNvcnJlc3BvbmRzIHRv IHRoZQpBbGVhZGVyL0tub3BwaXggaW1hZ2UgZGF0ZWQgMjAwMzA3MjYuCgpB ZnRlciB5b3UgYm9vdCB0aGUgQ0QsIHlvdSBzaG91bGQgc2VlIHR3byB3aW5k b3dzLiAgT25lIHdpbmRvdyBpcyBBZG9iZQpBY3JvYmF0IHNob3dpbmcgYGBB bGVhZGVyIE1hbnVhbCcnLiAgVGhlIG90aGVyIHdpbmRvdyBpcyBBbGVhZGVy LCBzaG93aW5nCmEgZW1wdHkgdHJhbnNjcmlwdC4KCiUgV0xKIEkgZGlkIG5v dCBzZWUgdGhlIGFib3ZlIHBpZWNlIG9mIHRleHQgaW4gdGhlIHByaW50b3V0 IG9mIHRoZSBwZGYKJSB2ZXJzaW9uLiAgSXQgaXMgaGVscGZ1bCBzbyBpdCBz aG91bGQgYXBwZWFyLgoKQGlmaHRtbApAc3AgMQpAZW5kIGlmaHRtbApAZW5k IGlmbm90dGV4CgpAbWVudQoqIFRlbiBFYXN5IENhdGVnb3JpZXM6OgoqIEd1 ZXNzaW5nIEdhbWU6OgoqIFRyZWFzdXJlIEh1bnQ6OgoqIEhhcmR3YXJlIFBy b2JsZW1zOjoKCkBpZm5vdGh0bWwKLS0tIERldGFpbGVkIE5vZGUgTGlzdGlu ZyAtLS0KCkBkZXRhaWxtZW51CiogVGVuIEVhc3kgQ2F0ZWdvcmllczo6Ciog R3Vlc3NpbmcgR2FtZTo6CiogVHJlYXN1cmUgSHVudDo6CiogSGFyZHdhcmUg UHJvYmxlbXM6OgoqICAgUENNQ0lBOjoKKiAgIEF1ZGlvIFNhbXBsZSBSYXRl OjoKQGVuZCBkZXRhaWxtZW51CkBlbmQgaWZub3RodG1sCkBlbmQgbWVudQoK QGlmbm90dGV4CkBpbnNlcnRjb3B5aW5nCkBlbmQgaWZub3R0ZXgKCkBub2Rl IFRlbiBFYXN5IENhdGVnb3JpZXMsIEd1ZXNzaW5nIEdhbWUsIFRvcCwgVG9w CkBjaGFwdGVyIFRlbiBFYXN5IENhdGVnb3JpZXMKCkBlbnVtZXJhdGUKQGl0 ZW0gTG9hZCBhbGwgdGhlIHRyYW5zY3JpcHRzIGluY2x1ZGVkIG9uIHRoZSBD RC4KJSBXTEogcmVwbGFjZSB0aGUgYWJvdmUgd2l0aCB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5n OgolIEBpdGVtIFN0ZXAgMTogIExvYWQgYWxsIHRoZSB0cmFuc2NyaXB0cyBp bmNsdWRlZCBvbiB0aGUgQ0QuICBJbW1lZGlhdGVseQolIGJlbG93IGV4cGxh aW5zIGhvdyB0byBkbyB0aGlzIGluIGRldGFpbC4KCgpAZW51bWVyYXRlCkBp dGVtIFNlbGVjdCBAY29kZXtTdGFyV2Fyc19yNS5sZWFkcn0gZnJvbSB0aGUg QGNvZGV7RmlsZX0gbWVudS4KJSBXTEogcmVwbGFjZSB0aGUgYWJvdmUgd2l0 aAolIEBpdGVtIEZpbmQgdGhlIDx3aGF0ZXZlciAtIGkgZm9yZ290IHdoYXQg aXQgaXMgY2FsbGVkPiB3aW5kb3cuICBNb3ZlIHRvIHlvdXIKJSBtb3VzZSB0 byBiZSByaWdodCBvdmVyIHdoZXJlIGl0IHNheXMgRmlsZS4gIENsaWNrIG9u IEZpbGUuICBZb3UnbGwgc2VlCiUgc2V2ZXJhbCBvcHRpb25zLiAgRG93biBu ZWFyIHRoZSBtaWRkbGUgeW91IHdpbGwgc2VlIHNvbWV0aGluZyB0aGF0IGVu ZHMgCiUgd2l0aCAiU3RhcldhcnNfcjQubGVhZHIiLiAgQ2xpY2sgb24gdGhh dC4gIAoKCgpAaXRlbSBUaGUgdHJhbnNjcmlwdCBmb3IgU3RhciBXYXJzIGFw cGVhcnMuCiUgV0xKIEhhdmluZyBjbGlja2VkIG9uIFN0YXJXYXJzX3I0Lmxl YWRlciB5b3Ugc2hvdWxkIHNlZSB0aGF0IGEgd2luZG93CiUgd2l0aCBhIHRy YW5zY3JpcHQgZm9yIFN0YXIgV2FycyBhcHBlYXJzLiAgCgpAaXRlbSBTZWxl Y3QgQGNvZGV7TmF1c2ljYWFfcjYubGVhZHJ9IGZyb20gdGhlIEBjb2Rle0Zp bGV9IG1lbnUuCgpAaXRlbSBBIG5ldyB3aW5kb3cgb3BlbnMgY29udGFpbmlu ZyB0aGUgdHJhbnNjcmlwdCBmb3IgTmF1c2ljYWEuCgpAaXRlbSBTZWxlY3Qg QGNvZGV7R29vZFdpbGxIdW50aW5nX3I4LmxlYWRyfSBmcm9tIHRoZSBAY29k ZXtGaWxlfSBtZW51LgoKQGl0ZW0gQSB0aGlyZCB3aW5kb3cgb3BlbnMgY29u dGFpbmluZyB0aGUgR29vZCBXaWxsIEh1bnRpbmcgdHJhbnNjcmlwdC4KQGVu ZCBlbnVtZXJhdGUKCkBpdGVtIEZyb20gdGhlIEBjb2Rle1Rvb2xzfSBtZW51 LCBzZWxlY3QgQGNvZGV7WC1SZWZlcmVuY2V9LgoKJSBXTEogZnJvbSB3aGlj aCB3aW5kb3c/CgpAaXRlbSBUaGUgQ3Jvc3MgUmVmZXJlbmNlIHNjcmVlbiBh cHBlYXJzLiAgVGhpcyBzY3JlZW4gaXMgZGl2aWRlZAppbnRvIHRocmVlIHNl Y3Rpb25zLiAgT24gdGhlIGxlZnQgc2lkZSBpcyB0aGUgc2l0dWF0aW9uIHBh dHRlcm4gZWRpdG9yLgpBIHBhdHRlcm4gbGlzdCBpcyBpbiB0aGUgY2VudGVy LiAgT24gdGhlIHJpZ2h0IGlzIGEgbGlzdCBvZiBtYXRjaGluZwpzaXR1YXRp b25zLgoKQGl0ZW0gRnJvbSB0aGUgQGNvZGV7U2VhcmNofSBtZW51LCBzZWxl Y3QgQGNvZGV7RW1vdGlvbn0uCgpAaXRlbSBBbiBAY29kZXtFbW90aW9uIFNl YXJjaH0gd2luZG93IGFwcGVhcnMuCgolV0xKIHB1dCwgIkluIHRoYXQgd2lu ZG93IiBpbW1lZGlhdGVseSBiZWZvcmUgIlR5cGUiIGJlbG93LgoKQGl0ZW0g VHlwZSB0aGUgbGV0dGVycyBAY29kZXtjZWxlfSBpbnRvIHRoZSBAY29kZXtT YW1wbGV9IGVudHJ5IGJveC4KCkBpdGVtIEFzIHlvdSB0eXBlLCB0aGUgbGlz dCB3aWxsIGNoYW5nZSB0byBzaG93IG9ubHkgdGhvc2UgZW1vdGlvbnMKd2hp Y2ggY29udGFpbiB5b3VyIHN1Yi1zdHJpbmcuCgpAaXRlbSBUaGUgZW1vdGlv biBAY29kZXtjZWxlYnJhdGUgcHJlc2VuY2V9IHJlbWFpbnMuCgpAaXRlbSBJ biB0aGUgQGNvZGV7I30gY29sdW1uIGEgQGNvZGV7OX0gYXBwZWFycy4gIFRo aXMgaW5kaWNhdGVzCnRoYXQgdGhpcyBlbW90aW9uIGhhcyBuaW5lIGV4YW1w bGVzIGFtb25nIHRoZSB0aHJlZSBsb2FkZWQgZmlsbXMuCgpAaXRlbSBDbGlj ayBvbiB0aGUgQGNvZGV7Y2VsZWJyYXRlIHByZXNlbmNlfSByb3cuICUgV0xK IGFkZCwgIkl0IGlzIGhpZ2hsaWdodGVkLiIKCkBpdGVtIENsaWNrIHRoZSBA Y29kZXtTZWxlY3R9IGJ1dHRvbiBhdCB0aGUgYm90dG9tIG9mIHRoZSBzZWFy Y2ggd2luZG93LgoKQGl0ZW0gVGhlIENyb3NzIFJlZmVyZW5jZSBzY3JlZW4g dXBkYXRlcy4KCkBpdGVtaXplIEBidWxsZXQKQGl0ZW0gT24gdGhlIGxlZnQg c2lkZSBuZWFyIHRoZSBib3R0b20geW91IHNob3VsZCBzZWUKQGNvZGV7ZXh0 cmVtZSBbMF0gYW5kIFswXSBhcmUgYXQgcmVhZGluZXNzfSBhbmQKQGNvZGV7 Y2VsZWJyYXRlIHByZXNlbmNlfSBiZWxvdyBpdC4KCiUgV0xKIEknZCByZWNv bW1lbmQgdGhhdCBlYWNoIEBjb2RlIGJsdXJiIGJlIG9uIGl0cyBvd24gbGlu ZSBsaWtlCiUgXGJlZ2lue3F1b3RhdGlvbn0gZW52aXJvbm1lbnRzIGluIGxh dGV4LgoKQGl0ZW0gSW4gdGhlIGNlbnRlciBsaXN0LCB0aGVyZSBpcyBvbmx5 IG9uZSByb3cgc2hvd2luZyB0aGUgc2FtZQppbmZvcm1hdGlvbiAoQGNvZGV7 ZXh0cmVtZSBbMF0gYW5kIEBkb3Rze319KS4KCkBpdGVtIE9uIHRoZSByaWdo dCBzaWRlLCB0aGUgbGlzdCBpcyBmaWxsZWQgd2l0aCBtYW55IHJvd3MuClRo ZSBmaXJzdCByb3cgcmVhZHMsIGBgQSB0cmFuc3BvcnQhICBJJ20gc2F2ZWQh JycuICBUaGUgc2Vjb25kIHJvdyB3aGljaApzYXlzICJBcnRvIENoaXJwcyBh IHJlcGx5IiBpcyBhIGRpbSBncmF5ICh0aGlzIGluZGljYXRlcyB0aGF0IHRo ZQolIFdMSiBpdCB3YXNuJ3QgZGltIGdyYXkgb24gbXkgbWFjaGluZS4KZXhh bXBsZSBtYXkgYmUgd2VhayBvciBpbmNvcnJlY3RseSBjbGFzc2lmaWVkKS4g IFRoZSB0aGlyZCByb3cgcmVhZHMsCmBgTmF1c2ljYWEgd2F2ZXMgYXMgc2hl IGdsaWRlcyBhYm92ZSB0aGUgT2htdScnLiAgVGhlc2UgYXJlIGFsbCB0aGUK ZXhhbXBsZXMgb2YgQGNvZGV7Y2VsZWJyYXRlIHByZXNlbmNlfS4KQGVuZCBp dGVtaXplCgpAaXRlbSBDbGljayBvbiB0aGUgZmlyc3QgZXhhbXBsZSAoQGNv ZGV7QSB0cmFuc3BvcnQhICBJJ20gc2F2ZWQhfSkuCgolIEBpdGVtIENsaWNr IG9uIHRoZSBAY29kZXtQbGF5fSBidXR0b24gYXQgdGhlIGJvdHRvbSBvZiB0 aGUgY29sdW1uLgoKQGl0ZW0gSW4gdGhpcyB3aW5kb3csIGkuZS4gdGhlIHdp bmRvdyBsYWJlbGVkICJDcm9zcyBSZWZlcmVuY2UiLCB5b3UnbGwgc2VlIGEg cGxheSBidXR0b24gYXQgdGhlIGJvdHRvbS4gIENsaWNrIGl0LgoKQGl0ZW0g QW5vdGhlciB3aW5kb3cgYXBwZWFycyBAZG90c3t9IGJ1dCBub3RoaW5nIGhh cHBlbnMuICBUaGUKdmlkZW8gcGxheWJhY2sgY29kZSByZXF1aXJlcyBAZW1w aHt0d299IHRyaWVzIHRvIHBsYXkgd2hlbiBpdCBmaXJzdApzdGFydHMgdXAu CgpAaXRlbSBQb3NpdGlvbiB0aGUgcGxheWJhY2sgd2luZG93LiAgUHJlc3Mg QGNvZGV7UGxheX0gYWdhaW4uCgpAaXRlbSBUaHJlZXBpbyB3YXZlcyBoaXMg aGFuZHMuCgpAaXRlbWl6ZSBAYnVsbGV0CkBpdGVtIFlvdSBjYW4gcHJlc3Mg QGNvZGV7UGxheX0gYWdhaW4gdG8gcmVwZWF0IHRoZSBjbGlwLgoKQGl0ZW0g VGhlIGJveCBhdCB0aGUgbG93ZXIgbGVmdCBvZiB0aGUgcGxheWJhY2sgd2lu ZG93IHNob3dzCnRoZSBjdXJyZW50IHBvc2l0aW9uIGluIHNlY29uZHMuICBZ b3UgY2FuIGVkaXQgdGhpcyBudW1iZXIgdG8KanVtcCB0byBhbnkgbW9tZW50 IGluIHRoZSBmaWxtLiAgVHJ5IHR5cGluZyBpbiAxMTAwIGFuZCBwcmVzcyBl bnRlci4KSWYgeW91IHByZXNzIHRoZSBncmVlbiBhcnJvdyBwb2ludGluZyBy aWdodCB0aGVuIHRoZSBmaWxtIHdpbGwKYmVnaW4gcGxheWJhY2sgZnJvbSB0 aGlzIHBvaW50LgoKQGl0ZW0gVGhlIGJ1dHRvbiB3aXRoIHR3byB0aGljayB2 ZXJ0aWNhbCBiYXJzIGlzIHRoZSBwYXVzZSBidXR0b24uClByZXNzIHRoaXMg YnV0dG9uIHRvIHBhdXNlIHBsYXliYWNrLgoKQGl0ZW0gWW91IGNhbiBkcmFn IHRoZSBzY3JvbGwgYmFyLiAgV2hlbiB5b3UgcmVsZWFzZSBpdCwgdGhlIGZp bG0gd2lsbApzaG93IHlvdSB0aGUgZnJhbWUgYXQgdGhhdCBwb3NpdGlvbiBp biB0aGUgZmlsbS4KQGVuZCBpdGVtaXplCgpAaXRlbSBDbGljayBvbiB0aGUg bmV4dCBleGFtcGxlIGBgTmF1c2ljYWEgd2F2ZXMgYXMgc2hlIEBkb3Rze30n JyAoc2tpcCB0aGUKZ3JheSBleGFtcGxlIGZvciBub3cpLgoKQGl0ZW0gQ2xp Y2sgdGhlIEBjb2Rle1BsYXl9IGJ1dHRvbi4KCkBpdGVtIFRoZSBmaWxtIHBs YXliYWNrIHdpbmRvdyBkaXNhcHBlYXJzLiAgVGhpcyBpcyBub3JtYWwuICBU aGUKcGxheWJhY2sgd2luZG93IG5lZWRzIHRvIHJlc3RhcnQgd2hlbiBzd2l0 Y2hpbmcgZmlsbXMuICBQcmVzcwpAY29kZXtQbGF5fSBhZ2Fpbi4KCkBpdGVt IFRoZSBwbGF5YmFjayB3aW5kb3cgcmVhcHBlYXJzIGJ1dCBkb2Vzbid0IGRv IGFueXRoaW5nLgpQb3NpdGlvbiB0aGUgd2luZG93IGFuZCBwcmVzcyBAY29k ZXtQbGF5fSBhZ2Fpbi4KCkBpdGVtIFdhdGNoIGEgcGVyc29uIG9uIGEgc21h bGwgZ2xpZGVyIHdhdmluZy4KCkBpdGVtIENsaWNrIG9uIHRoZSBuZXh0IGV4 YW1wbGU6IGBgWXVwYSB3YXZlcyBiYWNrLicnCgpAaXRlbSBDbGljayB0aGUg QGNvZGV7UGxheX0gYnV0dG9uLiAgVGhpcyB0aW1lIHRoZSBmaWxtIHJvbGxz CmltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IHNpbmNlIHRoZSBjb3JyZWN0IGZpbG0gaXMgYWxyZWFk eSBsb2FkZWQuCgpAaXRlbSBJdCBzZWVtcyBsaWtlIG1lcmVseSBhIGNvbnRp bnVhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgcHJldmlvdXMgZXhhbXBsZS4KSG93ZXZlciwgdGhl IHBvaW50IG9mIHZpZXcgaXMgZGlmZmVyZW50LiAgVGhpcyB0aW1lIHRoZSBl bXBoYXNpcwppcyBvbiB0aGUgbWFuIHN0YW5kaW5nIG9uIHRoZSBncm91bmQu ICBXaGVuZXZlciB0aGUgcG9pbnQgb2YgdmlldwpjaGFuZ2VzIHRoZW4gd2Ug Y2xhc3NpZnkgaXQgYXMgYSBuZXcgc2l0dWF0aW9uLgoKQGl0ZW0gQ2xpY2sg b24gdGhlIG5leHQgZXhhbXBsZTogYGBUaGV5IGVtYnJhY2UgQGRvdHN7fScn CgpAaXRlbSBDbGljayB0aGUgQGNvZGV7UGxheX0gYnV0dG9uLgoKQGl0ZW0g SGVyZSBpcyB5ZXQgYW5vdGhlciBleGFtcGxlIG9mIEBjb2Rle2NlbGVicmF0 ZSBwcmVzZW5jZX0uCgpAaXRlbSBHbyB0aHJvdWdoIHRoZSByZXN0IG9mIHRo ZSBleGFtcGxlcyBhbmQgdmlldyBlYWNoIG9uZS4KCkBpdGVtIEp1c3QgdG8g bWFrZSB5b3Ugc3VyZSBAZW1waHtnZXQgaXR9LCBnbyB0aHJvdWdoIGFsbCBv Zgp0aGUgZXhhbXBsZXMgQGVtcGh7YWdhaW59LiAgS2VlcCBpbiBtaW5lIHRo YXQgdGhlc2UgZXhhbXBsZXMKYXJlIHRoZSBAZW1waHtkZWZpbml0aW9ufSBv ZiBAY29kZXtjZWxlYnJhdGUgcHJlc2VuY2V9LgoKQGVudW1lcmF0ZQpAaXRl bSBJZiB0aGUgZmlsbSBpcyBjdXQgdG9vIHNob3J0IHRoZW4gdmlldyBhIGxh cmdlciBzZWdtZW50IHRvCmdldCB0aGUgc3Vycm91bmRpbmcgY29udGV4dC4K CkBpdGVtIEluIHRoZSBsb3dlciBsZWZ0IGNvcm5lciBvZiB0aGUgcGxheWJh Y2sgd2luZG93LCBhZGphY2VudCB0byB0aGUKZW50cnkgYm94IGFyZSB0d28g bnVtYmVycy4gIFRoZXNlIG51bWJlcnMgYXJlIHRoZSBiZWdpbm5pbmcgKHRv cCkgYW5kCmVuZCAoYm90dG9tKSBvZiB0aGUgY2xpcCBpbiBzZWNvbmRzLgoK QGl0ZW0gU3VidHJhY3QgMzAgb3IgNjAgZnJvbSB0aGUgdG9wIG51bWJlciBh bmQgZW50ZXIgdGhlIHJlc3VsdAppbnRvIHRoZSBlbnRyeSBib3ggYXQgdGhl IGJvdHRvbSBsZWZ0LgoKQGl0ZW0gUHJlc3MgZW50ZXIuICBUaGUgYmVnaW4v ZW5kIG51bWJlcnMgZGlzYXBwZWFyLiAgVGhlCmZpbG0gcG9zaXRpb25zIGF0 IHRoZSBvZmZzZXQgeW91IGVudGVyZWQuCgpAaXRlbSBQcmVzcyB0aGUgZ3Jl ZW4gcmlnaHQtYXJyb3cgYnV0dG9uIChwbGF5KS4KCkBpdGVtIFRoZSBmaWxt IHBsYXlzIGFuZCBrZWVwcyBwbGF5aW5nIHVudGlsIHlvdSBwcmVzcyB0aGUK cGF1c2UgYnV0dG9uICh0d28gdGhpY2sgdmVydGljYWwgYmFycykuCgpAaXRl bSBBZnRlciB5b3UgaGF2ZSBzZWVuIGVub3VnaCwgcHJlc3MgcGF1c2UuCgpA aXRlbSBHbyBiYWNrIHRvIHRoZSBDcm9zcyBSZWZlcmVuY2Ugc2NyZWVuIGFu ZCBjbGljayBAY29kZXtQbGF5fS4KCkBpdGVtIE5vdyB0aGF0IHlvdSBoYXZl IHRoZSBjb21wbGV0ZSBjb250ZXh0LCB5b3Ugc2hvdWxkIGJlIGFibGUKdG8g Z2V0IGEgY2xlYXIgZmVlbGluZyBmb3IgZXZlbiBhIHZlcnkgc2hvcnQgY2xp cC4KQGVuZCBlbnVtZXJhdGUKCkBpdGVtIEZyb20gdGhlIEBjb2Rle1NlYXJj aH0gbWVudSwgc2VsZWN0IEBjb2Rle0Vtb3Rpb259LgoKQGl0ZW0gQW4gQGNv ZGV7RW1vdGlvbiBTZWFyY2h9IHdpbmRvdyBhcHBlYXJzLgpUaGlzIHRpbWUg dHlwZSBAY29kZXtsaW19IGludG8gdGhlIHNhbXBsZSBib3guCgpAaXRlbSBT ZWxlY3QgdGhlIHJlbWFpbmluZyByb3cgd2hpY2ggY29udGFpbnMgYGAxMScn IGFuZCBgYGxpbWJvJycuCgpAaXRlbSBDbGljayB0aGUgQGNvZGV7U2VsZWN0 fSBidXR0b24uCgpAaXRlbSBUaGUgQ3Jvc3MgUmVmZXJlbmNlIHNjcmVlbiB1 cGRhdGVzLgoKQGl0ZW1pemUgQGJ1bGxldApAaXRlbSBPbiB0aGUgbGVmdCBz aWRlIG5lYXIgdGhlIGJvdHRvbSB5b3Ugc2hvdWxkIHNlZQpAY29kZXtmb3Jj ZWZ1bCBbMF0gYW5kIFswXSBhcmUgYXQgcmVhZGluZXNzfSBhbmQKQGNvZGV7 bGltYm99IGJlbG93IGl0LgoKQGl0ZW0gSW4gdGhlIGNlbnRlciBsaXN0LCB0 aGVyZSBpcyBvbmx5IG9uZSByb3cgc2hvd2luZyB0aGUgc2FtZQppbmZvcm1h dGlvbiAoQGNvZGV7Zm9yY2VmdWwgWzBdIGFuZCBAZG90c3t9fSkuCgpAaXRl bSBPbiB0aGUgcmlnaHQgc2lkZSwgdGhlIGxpc3QgaXMgZmlsbGVkIHdpdGgg bWFueSByb3dzLgpUaGUgZmlyc3Qgcm93IHJlYWRzLCBgYFJlYmVsIHRyb29w ZXJzIHJ1c2ggcGFzdCB0aGUgcm9ib3RzIGFuZCB0YWtlIHVwIEBkb3Rze30n Jy4KVGhlIHNlY29uZCByb3cgcmVhZHMgYGBhaW0gdGhlaXIgd2VhcG9ucy4n Jy4gIFRoZSB0aGlyZCByb3cgcmVhZHMsCmBgTGVpYSBoaWRlcyBpbiB0aGUg c2hhZG93cy4nJy4gIFRoZXNlIGFyZSBhbGwgdGhlIGV4YW1wbGVzIG9mCkBj b2Rle2xpbWJvfS4KQGVuZCBpdGVtaXplCgpAaXRlbSBWaWV3IGVhY2ggb25l IG9mIHRoZXNlIDExIGV4YW1wbGVzLiAgVGhlc2UgZXhhbXBsZXMgYXJlCnRo ZSBAZW1waHtkZWZpbml0aW9ufSBvZiBAY29kZXtsaW1ib30uCgpAaXRlbSBS ZXBlYXQgdGhlIHNhbWUgc3RlcHMgdG8gdmlldyB0aGUgZXhhbXBsZXMgb2Yg ZWFjaCBvZgp0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIHRlbiBlbW90aW9ucy4gIFlvdSBoYXZl IGFscmVhZHkgZmluaXNoZWQgbG9va2luZwphdCBAY29kZXtjZWxlYnJhdGUg cHJlc2VuY2V9IGFuZCBAY29kZXtsaW1ib30uCgpAZW51bWVyYXRlCkBpdGVt IGNlbGVicmF0ZSBwcmVzZW5jZQpAaXRlbSBsaW1ibwpAaXRlbSBzbGVlcCAv IGlubmVyIHR1cm1vaWwKQGl0ZW0gdGFrZSBieSBmb3JjZQpAaXRlbSBzdHJ1 Z2dsZSBhZ2FpbnN0IHRoaWVmCkBpdGVtIGNyaXRpY2l6ZQpAaXRlbSBwcmVk aWN0aW9uCkBpdGVtIGRpcmUgcHJlZGljdGlvbgpAaXRlbSBlbnRodXNpYXN0 aWMgZW5mb3JjZXIKQGl0ZW0gbWV0aWN1bG91cyBkb3VidApAZW5kIGVudW1l cmF0ZQoKQGl0ZW0gQXNrIHlvdXJzZWxmIHRoZXNlIHR3byBxdWVzdGlvbnM6 CgpAZW51bWVyYXRlCkBpdGVtIEZvciBhIGdpdmVuIGVtb3Rpb24sIGFyZSBh bGwgb2YgdGhlIGRlZmluaW5nIGV4YW1wbGVzIHNpbWlsYXI/CgpAaXRlbSBB cmUgYWxsIG9mIHRoZSBlbW90aW9uIGNhdGVnb3JpZXMgZGlzc2ltaWxhciB3 aXRoIGFsbAp0aGUgb3RoZXIgY2F0ZWdvcmllcz8gIERvIHRoZSBjYXRlZ29y aWVzIGZvcm0gYSBkaXNqb2ludCBwYXJ0aXRpb24/CkBlbmQgZW51bWVyYXRl CgpOb3RlIGRvd24gYW55IHNpdHVhdGlvbiB3aGljaCBmYWlscyB0byBzYXRp c2Z5IHRoZXNlIHR3byBxdWVzdGlvbnMuCgolV0xKIGNsZWFyZXIgdG8gc2F5 LCAiTm90ZSBkb3duIGFueSBzaXR1YXRpb24gZm9yIHdoaWNoIHRoZSBhbnN3 ZXIgdG8gCiUgdGhlIGFib3ZlIHF1ZXN0aW9ucyBpcyAibm8iLgoKJVdMSiBC RUdJTk5JTkcgT0YgQklHIENPTU1FTlQgQkxVUkI6CgpXTEogb2theSwgd2Vs bCwgYmFzaWNhbGx5IEkgdGhpbmsgSSBnZXQgaXQuICBNeSBtYWluIGJlbGll ZiBpcyB0aGF0CnRoZXJlIG1heSBiZSBzb21lIHJvYnVzdG5lc3MgdG8geW91 ciBjYXRlZ29yaWVzIGJ1dCBub3QgbXVjaC4gIFBlcmhhcHMKdGhlIGZvbGxv d2luZyB3aWxsIG1ha2UgdGhlIHBvaW50Li4uIkFydG8gQ2hpcnBzIGEgUmVw bHkiIGlzIHNsaWdodApkaWZmZXJlbnQuICBEaWZmZXJlbnQgdGhhbiB3aGF0 PyAgSSBmb3JnZXQgZXhhY3RseSwgbXkgd3JpdHRlbiBub3RlcwoobWFkZSBh IGZldyBkYXlzIGFnbyBhcmUgdW5jbGVhcikuICBCdXQgaXQgaXMgcHJvYmFi bHkgZGlmZmVyZW50IGZyb20KYWxsIG9yIG1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlIG90aGVyICJD ZWxlYnJhdGUgUHJlc2VuY2UiIGNsaXBzLiAgSXQgaXMgZGlmZmVyZW50CmJl Y2F1c2UgdGhlcmUgaXMgYSBzZW5zZSBvZiByZWNvZ25pdGlvbiBhbmQgcmVs aWVmIGluIGEgc3RyYW5nZQplbnZpcm9ubWVudC4gIFRoaXMgZmVlbGluZyBz ZWVtcyBwaGVub21lbm9sb2dpY2FsbHkgZGlmZmVyZW50IHRoYW4gdGhlCmZl ZWxpbmcgZS5nLiAiTmF1c2ljbyB0d2lybHMgYXJvdW5kLiIgIEluIHRoZSBs YXR0ZXIgdGhlcmUgaXMgbW9yZQpmYXRoZXJseSBhZmZlY3Rpb24uICBUaGUg ZmF0aGVybHkgYWZmZWN0aW9uIGluIHRoaXMgbGF0dGVyIGNsaXAgaXMgbm90 CnByZXNlbnQgaW4gIkFydG8gY2hyaXBzIGEgcmVwbHkuIgoKV0xKLi4uLkJv dGggIk1hc3RlciBZdXBhcyIgYXJlIGRpc3RpbmN0IGZyb20gb25lIGFub3Ro ZXIuLi5PbmUgaW52b2x2ZXMKYSBzZXQgb2YgY29sbGVnaWFsIHJlZ2FyZCBh bmQgdGhlIG90aGVyIGlzIG1vcmUgbGlrZSwgeWF5LCBwYXBhIGlzIGJhY2su ClRoZSBmb3JtZXIgZW1vdGlvbnMgZGVwaWN0ZWQgYXJlIG1vcmUgYWR1bHQg aW4gdG9uZSwgdGhlIGxhdHRlciBtb3JlCmNoaWxkbGlrZSBpbiB0b25lLiAg QW5kIGJvdGggb2YgdGhlc2UgZG9uJ3Qgc2VlbSB0byBpbnZvbHZlIHRoZSBr aW5kIG9mCmZlYXIgdGhhdCBjb2xvcnMgIkFydG8gQ2hpcnBzIGEgUmVwbHki LiAgSW4gIkFydG8gQ2hpcnBzIGEgUmVwbHkiIHRoZXkKYXJlIGluIGEgaG9z dGlsZSBzdHJhbmdlIGVudmlyb25tZW50IGZ1bGwgb2YgdW5jZXJ0YWludHku ICBFLmcuIHdoZXJlCmFyZSB0aGV5IGdvaW5nPyAgVGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gc3Vj aCBjb2xvcmF0aW9uIGluIHRoZSAiTWFzdGVyIFl1cGEiIGNsaXBzCmJlY2F1 c2UgaW4gdGhvc2UgbGF0dGVyIGNsaXBzIGl0IHNlZW1zIHRvIG1lIHRoYXQg dGhlIGNoYXJhY3RlcnMgYXJlCmZlZWxpbmcgc2FmZSBpbiBhIGhvbWV5IGVu dmlyb25tZW50Li4uLi5JIG1haW50YWluIHRoYXQgeW91ciBjYXRlZ29yaWVz CmFyZSBzb21ld2hhdCBhZmZlY3RpdmVseSBoZXRlcm9nZW5lb3VzLgoKTm9u ZXRoZWxlc3MsIHRoZXJlIGlzIHNvbWUgc2ltaWxhcml0eS4gIFN1cmUsIHRo ZXJlIGlzIGEgaGFwcHkgZmVlbGluZwpmZWx0IGJ5IGNlcnRhaW4gY2hhcmFj dGVycyBpbiBhbGwgb2YgdGhvc2Ugc2NlbmVzLiAgT25lIGltcG9ydGFudApx dWVzdGlvbiBpcywgaXMgdGhlcmUgbW9yZSBoZXRlcm9nZW5ldGl5IGJldHdl ZW4gY2F0ZWdvcmllcyB0aGFuIHdpdGhpbgpjYXRlZ29yaWVzPyAgT25lIHdh eSB5b3UgY291bGQgdGVzdCB0aGlzIGlzIGFzayBwZW9wbGUgdG8gdmlldyBw YWlycyBvZgpzY2VuZXMgYW5kIHJhdGUgdGhlaXIgYWZmZWN0aXZlIHNpbWls YXJpdHkgb24gYSBzY2FsZSBvZiAxLTUuICBJIGFtIHN1cmUKdGhpcyBraW5k IG9mIHN0dWR5IGhhcyBiZWVuIGRvbmUgbWFueSB0aW1lcyBpbiB0aGUgZW1v dGlvbiBsaXRlcmF0dXJlLgpFLmcuIENoZWNrIG91dCB0aGUgam91cm5hbCBf Q29nbml0aW9uIGFuZCBFbW90aW9uXyBvdmVyIHRoZSBwYXN0IDEwCnllYXJz LgoKTWF5YmUsIGlmIHlvdSByZXBsYWNlIHlvdXIgY2F0ZWdvcmllcyB3aXRo IE9DQyBjYXRlZ29yaWVzIGFuZC9vciBSb3NlbWFuCmNhdGVnb3JpZXMgeW91 IHdpbGwgZ2V0IG1vcmUgYXR0ZW50aW9uIGZyb20gdGhlIGFjYWRlbWljIGNv bW11bml0eS4gIAoKU29tZSBtb3JlIHJhbmRvbSB0aG91Z2h0czoKCm8gSXQg d291bGQgYmUgaW50ZXJlc3RpbmcgdG8gYXBwbHkgZGlmZmVyZW50IHR5cGVz IG9mIHRleHQgdW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZwphbmQvb3Igc3RhdGlzdGljYWwgTkxQ IHRvIHRoZSBzY3JpcHRzIHlvdSBoYXZlIHByb3ZpZGVkLiAgSWYgaXQncwpp bmZlcmVuY2VzIGNvdWxkIGJlIHN5bmMnZCB1cCB0byBkaWZmZXJlbnQgZmls bSBjbGlwcyBhbmQgaXRzIGluZmVyZW5jZXMKY29tcGFyZWQgdG8gaHVtYW4n cyBpbmZlcmVuY2VzIHdhdGNoaW5nIChyZWFkaW5nPykgdGhlIHNhbWUgZmls bQooc2NyaXB0KSwgbm93IHdlIGFyZSBnZXR0aW5nIHNvbWV0aGluZ24gcXVp dGUgaW50ZXJlc3RpbmcuClNwZWNpZmljYWxseSwgYnkgY29tcGFyaW5nIGFm ZmVjdGl2ZSBqdWRnZW1lbnRzIGluIGVhY2ggb2YgdGhlc2UgdGhyZWUKY29u ZGl0aW9ucy4KCm8gU28gZmFyLCB0aGUgY2hpZWYgdmFsdWUgb2YgeW91ciBz eXN0ZW0gc2VlbXMgdG8gbWUgdG8gYmUgYWJsZSB0bwpwcm92aWRlIGEgdml2 aWQgYW5kIHJlbGlhYmxlIGRlcGljdG9yIG9mIGVtb3Rpb25zLiAgSSBhbSBz dGlsbCBxdWl0ZQp1bmZhbWlsaWFyIHdpdGggeW91ciB0aGVvcnkuCgpvIEkg ZGlkIG5vdCByZWFsbHkgZ2V0IHBhc3NlZCBhIHRob3JvdWdoIGNoZWNrb3V0 IG9mICJjZWxlYnJhdGUKcHJlc2VuY2UiLCBpLmUuIEl0ZW0gIzMxLiAgSG93 ZXZlciwgSSBkaWQgYSByYW5kb20gbGVhcCBhbmQgZW5kZWQgdXAKbG9va2lu ZyBhdCAiWW91IHRoaW5rIEknbSBhZnJhaWQgb2YgeW91IGJpZyBmdWNrPyIg ZnJvbSBHb29kd2lsbApIdW50aW5nLiAgVGhpcyBhcHBlYXJlZCB0byBiZSBj bGFzc2lmaWVkIGFzIGFkbWlyYXRpb24gKHRoZXJlIHdhcyBhIGJveApjaGVj a2VkIG5leHQgdG8gIlsrXSBhZG1pcmVzIFtvXS4iKS4KCiVXTEogRU5EIE9G IEJJRyBDT01NRU5UIEJMVVJCOgoKCgoKCkBlbmQgZW51bWVyYXRlCgpAbm9k ZSBHdWVzc2luZyBHYW1lLCBUcmVhc3VyZSBIdW50LCBUZW4gRWFzeSBDYXRl Z29yaWVzLCBUb3AKQGNoYXB0ZXIgR3Vlc3NpbmcgR2FtZQoKTm90aGluZyBo ZXJlIHlldC4KCkBub2RlIFRyZWFzdXJlIEh1bnQsIEhhcmR3YXJlIFByb2Js ZW1zLCBHdWVzc2luZyBHYW1lLCBUb3AKQGNoYXB0ZXIgVHJlYXN1cmUgSHVu dAoKTm90aGluZyBoZXJlIHlldC4KCkBub2RlIEhhcmR3YXJlIFByb2JsZW1z LCAgLCBUcmVhc3VyZSBIdW50LCBUb3AKQGNoYXB0ZXIgSGFyZHdhcmUgUHJv YmxlbXMKClRoaXMgY2hhcHRlciBsaXN0cyBzb2x1dGlvbnMgdG8gc29tZSBv ZiB0aGUgaGFyZHdhcmUgcHJvYmxlbXMgd2hpY2ggd2UKaGF2ZSBlbmNvdW50 ZXJlZC4KCkBtZW51CiogUENNQ0lBOjoKKiBBdWRpbyBTYW1wbGUgUmF0ZTo6 CkBlbmQgbWVudQoKQG5vZGUgUENNQ0lBLCBBdWRpbyBTYW1wbGUgUmF0ZSwg SGFyZHdhcmUgUHJvYmxlbXMsIEhhcmR3YXJlIFByb2JsZW1zCkBzZWN0aW9u IFBDTUNJQQoKVGhpcyBwcm9ibGVtIGlzIG1vcmUgY29tbW9uIHdpdGggbGFw dG9wcy4gIElmIHRoZSBib290IGhhbmdzIGFmdGVyCnRoZXNlIG1lc3NhZ2Vz OgoKQGV4YW1wbGUKQVBNIEJpb3MgZm91bmQsIHBvd2VyIG1hbmFnZW1lbnQg ZnVuY3Rpb25zIGVuYWJsZWQuClBDTUNJQSBmb3VuZCwgc3RhcnRpbmcgY2Fy ZG1ncgpAZW5kIGV4YW1wbGUKCkl0IGlzIHBvc3NpYmxlIHRoYXQgTGludXgg aXMgZ2V0dGluZyBzdHVjayB3aXRoIHRoZSBQQ01DSUEgYnVzLgpUcnkgYm9v dGluZyBhZ2FpbjoKCkBlbnVtZXJhdGUKQGl0ZW0gV2hlbiB5b3Ugc2VlIHRo ZSBLbm9wcGl4IGxvZ28sIHByZXNzIEYyLgoKQGl0ZW0gQXQgdGhlIGJvb3Qg cHJvbXB0IHR5cGUgImtub3BwaXggbm9wY21jaWEiLiAoU2luY2UgaXQgZnJv emUKYXQgdGhlIHBjbWNpYSBzdGVwLCBsZXQncyB0cnkgdHVybmluZyBvZmYg cGNtY2lhLikKCkBpdGVtIElmIHRoYXQgZG9lc24ndCB3b3JrIHRoZW4gc2Vu ZCBlbWFpbCB0byB0aGUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0CmFza2luZyBmb3IgbW9yZSBz dWdnZXN0aW9ucy4KCkBlbmQgZW51bWVyYXRlCgpAbm9kZSBBdWRpbyBTYW1w bGUgUmF0ZSwgICwgUENNQ0lBLCBIYXJkd2FyZSBQcm9ibGVtcwpAc2VjdGlv biBBdWRpbyBTYW1wbGUgUmF0ZQoKU29tZSBhdWRpbyBjYXJkcyBhcmUgcmF0 ZSBsb2NrZWQgdG8gNDgwMDBIeiBpbnN0ZWFkIG9mIDQ0MTAwSHouICBUaGlz IGlzCmEgcHJvYmxlbSBiZWNhdXNlIFZDRCBhdWRpbyBleHBlY3RzIDQ0MTAw SHouICBJZiB0aGlzIGlzIHRydWUgb2YgeW91cgphdWRpbyBjYXJkIHRoZW4g dGhlIGF1ZGlvIHdpbGwgcGxheWJhY2sgYSBsaXR0bGUgYml0IHRvbyBmYXN0 LCByYWlzaW5nCnRoZSBwaXRjaCBzb21ld2hhdC4gIEF1ZGlvL1ZpZGVvIHN5 bmMgd2lsbCBhbHNvIHN1ZmZlci4gIElmIHlvdSBzdXNwZWN0CnRoYXQgeW91 IGFyZSBoYXZpbmcgdGhpcyBwcm9ibGVtIHRoZW46CgpAZW51bWVyYXRlCkBp dGVtIENsaWNrIHRoZSBjb21wdXRlciBpY29uIGluIHRoZSBsb3dlciBsZWZ0 IGNvcm5lciBvZiB0aGUgc2NyZWVuLgpUaGUgY29tcHV0ZXIgaWNvbiBpcyBs b2NhdGVkIGJldHdlZW8gdGhlIGBgMyB3aW5kb3dzJycgYW5kIHRoZSBgYDEn JyBpY29ucy4KCkBpdGVtIEEgd2luZG93IHRpdGxlZCBgYHV4dGVybScnIHNo b3VsZCBhcHBlYXIuCgpAaXRlbSBUeXBlIEBjb2Rle2djb25mLWVkaXRvcn0g YW5kIHByZXNzIGVudGVyLgoKQGl0ZW0gQSB3YXJuaW5nIHdpbGwgYXBwZWFy LiAgRGlzbWlzcyBpdCBieSBjbGlja2luZyBgYE9LJycuCgpAaXRlbSBUaGUg c2NyZWVuIGlzIHNwbGl0IGludG8gdGhyZWUgcmVnaW9ucy4gIE9uIHRoZSBs ZWZ0IHNpZGUgdGhlcmUgaXMKYSB0cmVlIHdpdGggbGFiZWxzIHN1Y2ggYXMg YGBhcHBzJycgYW5kIGBgZGVza3RvcCcnLiAgVGhlIHRvcCByaWdodCBjb250 YWlucwphIGxpc3Qgb2YgbmFtZS12YWx1ZSBwYWlycy4gIFRoZSBib3R0b20g cmlnaHQgY29udGFpbnMgYGBLZXkgRG9jdW1lbnRhdGlvbicnLgoKQGl0ZW0g Q2xpY2sgb24gdGhlIHNtYWxsIHRyaWFuZ2xlIG5leHQgdG8gdGhlIEBjb2Rl e3N5c3RlbX0gZm9sZGVyLgoKQGl0ZW0gVHdvIHN1Yi1pdGVtcyBhcHBlYXI6 IGBgZ3N0cmVhbWVyJycgYW5kIGBgaHR0cF9wcm94eScnLgoKQGl0ZW0gQ2xp Y2sgb24gdGhlIHNtYWxsIHRyaWFuZ2xlIG5leHQgdG8gdGhlIEBjb2Rle2dz dHJlYW1lcn0gZm9sZGVyLgoKQGl0ZW0gT25lIGZvbGRlciBhcHBlYXJzIGxh YmVsbGVkIGBgZGVmYXVsdCcnLgoKQGl0ZW0gQ2xpY2sgb24gdGhpcyBmb2xk ZXIgbGFiZWxsZWQgYGBkZWZhdWx0JycuCgpAaXRlbSBGaXZlIG5hbWUtdmFs dWUgcGFpcnMgYXBwZWFyIGluIHRoZSB0b3AgcmlnaHQgbGlzdC4KCkBpdGVt IENsaWNrIG9uIHRoZSBgYGF1ZGlvc2luaycnIHJvdy4KCkBpdGVtIENsaWNr IG9uIHRoZSBwYXJ0IG9mIHRoZSBgYGF1ZGlvc2luaycnIHJvdyB0aGF0IGNv bnRhaW5zIGBgb3Nzc2luaycnLgoKQGl0ZW0gUHJlc3MgYmFja3NwYWNlIHRv IGVyYXNlIGBgb3Nzc2luaycnLiAgSW4gcGxhY2Ugb2YgYGBvc3NzaW5rJycs CnR5cGUgQGNvZGV7YXVkaW9zY2FsZSBmcmVxdWVuY3k9NDgwMDAgISBvc3Nz aW5rfSBhbmQgcHJlc3MgZW50ZXIuCgpAaXRlbSBSZXN0YXJ0IHRoZSBmaWxt IHBsYXliYWNrIHdpbmRvdy4gIExpc3RlbiB0byB0aGUgc291bmQuICBJcwp0 aGVyZSBhbnkgaW1wcm92ZW1lbnQ/CgpAZW5kIGVudW1lcmF0ZQoKVGhpcyBz ZXR0aW5nIGlzIG5vdCBzdGlja3kuICBZb3Ugd2lsbCBuZWVkIHRvIGFkanVz dCB0aGUgYXVkaW8KcGxheWJhY2sgZXZlcnkgdGltZSB5b3UgcmVib290LgoK JSBXTEogdGhlcmUgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGEgc2VjdGlvbiBvbiBob3cgdG8gcmVi b290LgoKQGJ5ZQo= --1400903298-2055391603-1060048193=:21679-- From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Aug 05 06:56:29 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19jzOf-0002l7-2A for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:50:29 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19jywu-0005b4-EM for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:21:48 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19jywN-0005Tm-Ha for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:21:47 -0400 Received: from [207.106.49.21] (helo=wink.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19jywM-0005Tb-TB for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:21:14 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (texas.pobox.com [64.49.223.111]) by wink.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EBBBFD90; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 06:21:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.242]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468DD4535E; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 06:21:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:51:04 +0530 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:51:04 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: "William L. Jarrold" Message-ID: <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> References: <20030729035533.GG619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:50:26 -0400 Cc: Enid J Pritikin , aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: direction X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 10:21:49 -0000 [I am aware of your limited time. I don't expect you to acknowledge everything I wrote in this email. I am keeping track of any issues which I feel are unresolved so I can feed them back to you later. For example, over the last few days I have made an effort to better separate the science & philosophy portions of Aleader. Eventually (not now!) I want to revisit whether the new organization hides the philosophy sufficiently well.] On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:49:53PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > I am finally attaching my comments on the tutorial. They way > they are written is sort of halphharzed. I first only > put new stuff by commenting it out with % and putting at > WLJ at the start of it. Then I did a big comment blurb with > WLJ. Might be best to respond to that via email discussion > rather than attachment. Then I went back and changed a few > lines of the original text without adding any WLJ indicators figuring > you can use a diff like tool to find 'em easy. The best way is just to change stuff without putting in any %WLJ marker. Diff (or emacs's emerge) works great. I see a lot of uncontroversial edits, such as: ---- @@ -119,6 +139,8 @@ @item An @code{Emotion Search} window appears. +%WLJ put, "In that window" immediately before "Type" below. + @item Type the letters @code{cele} into the @code{Sample} entry box. @item As you type, the list will change to show only those emotions ---- It is best if you simply commit these changes to CVS, but it's no big deal. I can also do the commit. > My main belief is that > there may be some robustness to your categories but not much. Perhaps > the following will make the point..."Arto Chirps a Reply" is slight > different. Different than what? I forget exactly, my written notes > (made a few days ago are unclear). But it is probably different from > all or most of the other "Celebrate Presence" clips. Frankly I'm surprised to read this because I clearly stated in the tutorial: The second row which says ``Artoo chirps a reply'' is dim gray (this indicates that the example may be weak or incorrectly classified). In other words, you should have ignored the examples which are shown in dim gray. (Oops, now that's a bug. Why do I show these situations at all? I'll fix that. Sorry for the confusion.) OK, let's move on ... > Both "Master Yupas" are distinct from one another...One involves > a set of collegial regard and the other is more like, yay, papa is back. > The former emotions depicted are more adult in tone, the latter more > childlike in tone. Agreed. In any classification scheme, some variation is unavoidable. The challenge is to see how well we can minimize the variation. In this particular case, I don't have any idea how to do better. Subjectively, I find both "Master Yupa"s similar enough. I do not feel urgent motivation to further distinguish them. > o I did not really get passed a thorough checkout of "celebrate > presence", i.e. Item #31. However, I did a random leap and ended up > looking at "You think I'm afraid of you big fuck?" from Goodwill > Hunting. This appeared to be classified as admiration (there was a box > checked next to "[+] admires [0]."). Perhaps it seems strange to classify this situation as "admires"? "Admires" is actually a _general_ category. This situation also classifies to the _specific_ category "haughty / arrogant" (which is a sub-type of admires). One more comment: I have not put much effort into translating Aleader's affective assessment in idiomatic, common-sense English. This is one of the many reasons why I request people to stop reading my explanation and start watching film clips. > okay, well, basically I think I get it. ... > ... there is some similarity. Sure, there is a happy feeling > felt by certain characters in all of those scenes. > ... > So far, the chief value of your system seems to me to be able to > provide a vivid and reliable depictor of emotions. Great! Now I won't have to run around in circles trying to verbally explain what you have now seen & quickly absorbed first-hand. If we publish an article, I guess we should "strongly recommend" that readers try out the CD? For those readers who don't try the CD, how much of an attempt should we make to verbally explain what is on the CD? Perhaps such a description should go in an appendix or something? > Maybe, if you replace your categories with OCC categories and/or Roseman > categories you will get more attention from the academic community. I certainly want to compare/constrast with OCC & Roseman. In fact, I got a copy of Roseman96 today. Sorry it took so long. I am looking forward to reading it. However, I am not willing to dump the Aleader model. Perhaps I am stubborn or irrational about this, but I continue to believe that Aleader offers a more precise affective model than any other existing model. Obviously, this belief does not rest on being well-read. It rests on a long inner struggle and deep introspection. I will offer some comments on Roseman soon though, in any case. In your first email, you suggested that I narrow the scope of my research. I agree that I am trying to do something "too big." However, I don't see a problem with that. I don't have a deadline. We can proceed in small, manageable steps. Be involved as much as you want. I appreciate your feedback very much. > One important > question is, is there more heterogenetiy between categories than within > categories? One way you could test this is ask people to view pairs of > scenes and rate their affective similarity on a scale of 1-5. That's a great idea! Why didn't I think of that? Here is an instance where your broad awareness of the field of cognitive psychology really helps me out. I have already done most of the work to automate this type of test. I will get busy and make a few more preparatory changes to the software. Perhaps within a week, we'll be ready (software-wise) to get started testing human subjects. > o It would be interesting to apply different types of text understanding > and/or statistical NLP to the scripts you have provided. If it's > inferences could be sync'd up to different film clips and its inferences > compared to human's inferences watching (reading?) the same film > (script), now we are getting something quite interesting. > Specifically, by comparing affective judgements in each of these three > conditions. That does sound very exciting. It also sounds like something that requires big databases and more computing power than I have at present. On the other hand, I do want to collect these more ambitious research ideas. Who knows, semi-automated emotional analysis of complete films may be of practical value to Hollywood studios. Personally I am happy to begin with an investigation of the question you raise above, "is there more heterogeneity between categories than within categories?". The test will require little effort to administer. Statistical analysis is straightforward. There is lots of precedent in the published literature (can you suggest a particularly good article which I can use as a model?). We could even limit the scope of the test to the 10 easy categories in the "getting started" guide (maybe, this choice has pros & cons). It should be relatively easy. What do you think? A simple article like this may be a necessary pre-cursor to a big NLP & inferencing project anyway. Isn't it? > I am still quite unfamiliar with your theory. Even so, I want to decide a course of action. Unless you come up with something better, I am going to plan my time according to the aim of publishing an article addressing the question: "is there more heterogeneity between categories than within categories?" I guess I need to write a research proposal now? Perhaps a one page outline giving an overview of what we have, what we want to do with it, and what we resources we need? I hope you can guide me through the process and perhaps help with corralling human subjects. I _may_ be able to find English speaking human subjects here in Nashik too. Perhaps it would add something to use human subjects from two different countries? I hope you find time to explore Aleader in a bit more depth. Here are my predictions about what you will find: + The categories are more robust than you thought initially. + You will appreciate the elegance and computability of the model. + You will see how the model can be extended or scaled up. + Simultaneous with your growing appreciation of the model, you will begin to feel that most people will need some training to go beyond the ten easy categories. I think this is a rather sticky problem. I look forward to hearing your opinion about it. -- .. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My! From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Aug 05 23:31:21 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19kF0u-0002XC-2b for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2003 23:31:00 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19kF0n-0002Go-K5 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2003 23:30:53 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19kF0D-0001DS-3n for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2003 23:30:48 -0400 Received: from [216.65.124.72] (helo=orb.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19kF0C-0001CL-7S for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2003 23:30:16 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (unknown [64.49.223.111]) by orb.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F4E156442 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 23:30:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.249]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222B5457D1 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 23:30:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 6 Aug 2003 08:59:58 +0530 Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 08:59:58 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Message-ID: <20030806032958.GD556@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Aleader-dev] Roseman96 X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 03:30:57 -0000 Cc: "William L. Jarrold" On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 03:51:04PM +0530, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > I will offer some comments on Roseman soon though, in any case. Another big email. :-) Here are my reactions while reading Roseman96. If you prefer to read my conclusion first then skip to the bottom. I've tried to organize my thoughts into three categories: 1. How Roseman's appraisal maps to Aleader's appraisal. 2. What I agree with or don't understand. 3. How Aleader's appraisal maps to Roseman's appraisal. +++ + +++ Here we go: 1. How Roseman's appraisal maps to Aleader's appraisal. + The appraisal of probability corresponds pretty well with Aleader's concept of tension. + The appraisal of "an event's control or influence potential by the self" corresponds to Aleader's appraisal of intensity. I am still refining the exact method of appraising intensity. Perhaps intensity is the most subtle component among Aleader's menu of appraisals. Maybe KR is needed to help me get rigorous. + I am confused by the terms "positive emotion" and "negative emotion". It seems tautological that "improving things" is positive and "made worse" is negative. On the other hand, I acknowledge that some way is needed to differentiate positive & negative emotions. I guess this roughly corresponds to Aleader's appraisal of individual intention. + The appraisals of causation by self and causation by other are represented implicitly in Aleader when the intention of two individuals are combined to form the situational intention. 2. What I agree with or don't understand. Agree with: + I agree that the appraisal of "whether one can cope with an event" is not relevant for differentiating emotion. + The appraisal of legitimacy and problem source are not represented in Aleader because the emotions which they differentiate are considered composite / sequential emotion patterns. Superficially, I do not see a problem with modelling these emotion patterns, but I have not attempted it. + I think that surprise could be modelled in an Aleader as a sequence: tension != relaxed then phase = after. (Don't worry about it if you don't understand my notation. Surprise is just one emotion. We can come back to it later.) Don't understand: + The idea of "motivational state" just seems confusing. Maybe I don't understand what it is suppose to mean. I guess I agree that motivational state needs some revision, as noted on page 261. + I'm not sure whether I understand the appraisal "causation by circumstances". Somehow it seems related to probability, but maybe not. 3. How Aleader's appraisal maps to Roseman's appraisal. Aleader's appraisal has five main components: initiator, intention, phase, tension, and intensity. + Both tension and intensity are well represented in Roseman's model, as noted above. + Intention is somewhat represented, but Aleader's method of appraising intention is more complex than Roseman's. + Aleader appraises phase. I didn't find phase in Roseman's model. If you recall my eariler email, a precise explanation of "phase" can be found at the end of KM's situation manual. + I did not find anything about initiator in Roseman's model. Perhaps this is due to his experimental methodology. The subjects are asked write about an event in which they were a participant. Therefore, the point of view will usually (always?) be the subject's point of view. To contrast, in Aleader there is no preset preference among the two participants' point of view. W Jarrold wrote: > i believe there is a hole in the literature. there is a more general > class of concepts that should be called "affective states". emotions > are a focused subclass of these. ambandoned is a classic affective > state which is not an emotion. Now I understand what you are talking about. Yes, I agree. Many of Aleader's "emotions" are not what people typically expect as an emotion. While Roseman seems to stick with a more traditional definition of emotion, Aleader follows the affective state idea. However, instead of inventing a term "affective state", I re-defined emotion to mean what you call "affective state". I still remain undecided whether it is better to introduce a new term or to re-define "emotion". I don't think emotion is very well defined (in general) and "affective state" is a mouth-full. What do you think? OK, I suppose I should write some sort of conclusion now. Despite confidence in my own introspection & creativity, I had quite a lot of anxiety approaching this type of article. What if Aleader's appraisal model included a bunch of factors which turned out to have poor empirical performance? That would be a problem. Now my worry is mostly finished. It is not always easy to gauge the similarity of appraisal questions, but I find that my intuition is mostly supported by the numbers. I look forward to reviewing OCC. -- .. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My! From MAILER-DAEMON Wed Aug 06 21:44:31 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19kZpO-0007vh-QV for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:44:30 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19kZpL-0007vR-Kd for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:44:27 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19kZop-0007nO-5o for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:44:26 -0400 Received: from [128.83.139.10] (helo=mail.cs.utexas.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19kZoo-0007n8-PK for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:43:54 -0400 Received: from thor.cs.utexas.edu (billj@thor.cs.utexas.edu [128.83.130.22]) by mail.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h771hkC0023989; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:43:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from billj@localhost) by thor.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h771hkAP010400; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:43:46 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:43:46 -0500 (CDT) From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin In-Reply-To: <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> Message-ID: References: <20030729035533.GG619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Enid J Pritikin , aleader-dev@nongnu.org, "William L. Jarrold" Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: direction X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:44:28 -0000 On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > [I am aware of your limited time. I don't expect you to acknowledge > everything I wrote in this email. I am keeping track of any issues > which I feel are unresolved so I can feed them back to you later. > > For example, over the last few days I have made an effort to better > separate the science & philosophy portions of Aleader. Eventually > (not now!) I want to revisit whether the new organization hides > the philosophy sufficiently well.] Yes, I meant to say that your .sig looks much better. Note that I have not yet looked at the (updated?) website to which it points. > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:49:53PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > > I am finally attaching my comments on the tutorial. They way > > they are written is sort of halphharzed. I first only > > put new stuff by commenting it out with % and putting at > > WLJ at the start of it. Then I did a big comment blurb with > > WLJ. Might be best to respond to that via email discussion > > rather than attachment. Then I went back and changed a few > > lines of the original text without adding any WLJ indicators figuring > > you can use a diff like tool to find 'em easy. > > The best way is just to change stuff without putting in any %WLJ > marker. Diff (or emacs's emerge) works great. > > I see a lot of uncontroversial edits, such as: ... > > It is best if you simply commit these changes to CVS, but it's no big > deal. I can also do the commit. Yes. Sorry. I will eventually bite the CVS bullet. Maybe during the next go around. Might make most sense to work over some of the fundamental philosophical, methological issues first. > > > My main belief is that > > there may be some robustness to your categories but not much. Perhaps > > the following will make the point..."Arto Chirps a Reply" is slight > > different. Different than what? I forget exactly, my written notes > > (made a few days ago are unclear). But it is probably different from > > all or most of the other "Celebrate Presence" clips. > > Frankly I'm surprised to read this because I clearly stated in > the tutorial: > > The second row which says ``Artoo chirps a reply'' is dim gray > (this indicates that the example may be weak or incorrectly classified). Okay. Could be a brain fart on my part. My main point -- that there is still some heterogeneity within each category -- remains. > > In other words, you should have ignored the examples which are > shown in dim gray. (Oops, now that's a bug. Why do I show > these situations at all? I'll fix that. Sorry for the confusion.) > OK, let's move on ... > > > Both "Master Yupas" are distinct from one another...One involves > > a set of collegial regard and the other is more like, yay, papa is back. > > The former emotions depicted are more adult in tone, the latter more > > childlike in tone. > > Agreed. > > In any classification scheme, some variation is unavoidable. > The challenge is to see how well we can minimize the variation. Yes, you want to minimize variation within a category. However the more categories you have, the less manageable and or harder to verify your theory becomes. Yes, in the limit as time approaches infinity you will want to maximize the number of your categories. But in the short term, I believe that the most fruitful theoretical work will be applied to emotions that 3 y.o. children can distinguish between. > > In this particular case, I don't have any idea how to do better. > Subjectively, I find both "Master Yupa"s similar enough. I do not > feel urgent motivation to further distinguish them. You don't, but it is quite likely that other humans will see things differently. > > > o I did not really get passed a thorough checkout of "celebrate > > presence", i.e. Item #31. However, I did a random leap and ended up > > looking at "You think I'm afraid of you big fuck?" from Goodwill > > Hunting. This appeared to be classified as admiration (there was a box > > checked next to "[+] admires [0]."). > > Perhaps it seems strange to classify this situation as "admires"? > "Admires" is actually a _general_ category. > > This situation also classifies to the _specific_ category > "haughty / arrogant" (which is a sub-type of admires). I don't see haughty as being a sub case of admires, unless admires includes self-admiration? > > One more comment: I have not put much effort into translating > Aleader's affective assessment in idiomatic, common-sense > English. This is one of the many reasons why I request people > to stop reading my explanation and start watching film clips. Sure. Film clips are a nice way to illustrate an emotion concept by way of several examples....Btw, it would help if your writings made the following clear: o Any given character in a given film clip may be depicting several different emotions at once. o A set of characters that are simultaneously present in a film clip need not be depicting identical emotions. o The overall emotional tone of depicted by a film clip is something that is distinct from what each of the individual characters in a film is depicting. ....Then again, perhaps you disagree with the above points. If so, lets talk. > > > okay, well, basically I think I get it. ... > > ... there is some similarity. Sure, there is a happy feeling > > felt by certain characters in all of those scenes. > > ... > > So far, the chief value of your system seems to me to be able to > > provide a vivid and reliable depictor of emotions. > > Great! Now I won't have to run around in circles trying to verbally > explain what you have now seen & quickly absorbed first-hand. > > If we publish an article, I guess we should "strongly recommend" > that readers try out the CD? I guess. But I feel like I knew this before I saw the film clips. > > For those readers who don't try the CD, how much of an attempt > should we make to verbally explain what is on the CD? Perhaps > such a description should go in an appendix or something? I'm not sure...Ask again later...However, an important first step to answering this question of yours is getting the following out into the open: My sense is that this "seeing is believing" deal is more important if one is attempting to promulgate the use of the CD for personal growth purposes...The research community wants cold hard data...Of course, the research community subconsciously likes watching cool videos, seeing neat demos etc but you have to slip that in under their noses -- e.g. during a talk at a conference, or with such compeling data or with such glowing avidafivits from people at Harvard that they have to check out the demo CD. My intuition tells me that you are into both the researchy and the personal growth aspects of this CD. However, my intuition also tells me that you have not yet developed separate strategies for these two aspects. > > > Maybe, if you replace your categories with OCC categories and/or Roseman > > categories you will get more attention from the academic community. > > I certainly want to compare/constrast with OCC & Roseman. In fact, I > got a copy of Roseman96 today. Sorry it took so long. I am looking > forward to reading it. However, I am not willing to dump the Aleader > model. Perhaps I am stubborn or irrational about this, but I continue > to believe that Aleader offers a more precise affective model than any > other existing model. Obviously, this belief does not rest on being > well-read. It rests on a long inner struggle and deep introspection. > I will offer some comments on Roseman soon though, in any case. Great. I look forward to your comments. Maybe you can show me a little bit of your theory in these emails. > > In your first email, you suggested that I narrow the scope of my > research. I agree that I am trying to do something "too big." > However, I don't see a problem with that. I don't have a deadline. > We can proceed in small, manageable steps. Definitely. Step one might be publish a paper about a teeny tiny problem. Step one might be deciding to focus on just two emotions that three year olds can reason about. I am not against theories that cover a lot of ground -- even if they are more complicated and ungainly than a Windows program! I suppose that what I am against is trying to build the entire program all at once. To follow the analogy, I'd rather see us write a simple word processor. Then maybe a spreadsheet program. Then an architecture to run both the word processor and the spreadsheet at the same time. Then, throw it all over and start over, this time with a slightly more ambitious goal...Sadly, no one but perhaps Clark Elliot or Eric Mueller or maybe barely just barely me, has written and validated "word processor" yet. > Be involved as much as > you want. I appreciate your feedback very much. Good. > > > One important > > question is, is there more heterogenetiy between categories than within > > categories? One way you could test this is ask people to view pairs of > > scenes and rate their affective similarity on a scale of 1-5. > > That's a great idea! Why didn't I think of that? Here is an instance > where your broad awareness of the field of cognitive psychology really > helps me out. Great. I feel like there are other ideas like this if I just ponder for a while. > > I have already done most of the work to automate this type of test. Good. > I will get busy and make a few more preparatory changes to the software. > Perhaps within a week, we'll be ready (software-wise) to get started > testing human subjects. One thing that would make it *much* easier to test gobs of subjects would be to have them simply point there browser at a website. The CD thing can be a pain....If you can do the website thing then you can do something like Open Mind. How hard would it be to do your thing via a website rather than a linux isa cd? > > > o It would be interesting to apply different types of text understanding > > and/or statistical NLP to the scripts you have provided. If it's > > inferences could be sync'd up to different film clips and its inferences > > compared to human's inferences watching (reading?) the same film > > (script), now we are getting something quite interesting. > > Specifically, by comparing affective judgements in each of these three > > conditions. > > That does sound very exciting. It also sounds like something that > requires big databases and more computing power than I have at > present. Hmm, I don't think so. There is some simple statistical nlp involving a program called liwc at... http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/pennebaker/reprints ...I doubt that "real" NLP takes up much more memory than Good Will Hunting. How much memory does the average feature length film require? Any idea off hand how much Cyc and or KM require? (Yes, I could check this and really should memorize it). > > On the other hand, I do want to collect these more ambitious research > ideas. Who knows, semi-automated emotional analysis of complete films > may be of practical value to Hollywood studios. Yes, interesting idea. But I think the video game industry and the clinical psychology market will be nearer term wins. > > Personally I am happy to begin with an investigation of the question > you raise above, "is there more heterogeneity between categories than > within categories?". The test will require little effort to > administer. Statistical analysis is straightforward. There is lots > of precedent in the published literature (can you suggest a > particularly good article which I can use as a model?). We could even > limit the scope of the test to the 10 easy categories in the "getting > started" guide (maybe, this choice has pros & cons). It should be > relatively easy. What do you think? Basically yes. But after doing my dissertation my belief is that an idea that seems trivially simple at the start will turn into something monumental. I had no idea what a repeated measures design was and that it would take me months of consultations with PhD experts in the Statistical Services office at UT... Nonetheless, this is probably our best -- i.e. most well defined and tractable -- research problem yet. I'd like to talk to my dissertation advisor about -- she always has great advice. Sorry, no articles I can think of off of the bat. It would probably be most interesting to compare three different categorization schemes. Maybe yours, plus Ortony's plus some scheme that should show now sig difference. THe number of subjects we can get will really drive the kinds of questions we can ask. If we can do it via the www we'll be able to get many more subjects IF the academic community is okay with surveys from individuals randomly obtained from people over the web. Else, we *might* be able to get some subjects through my connection with UT but, as I've said earlier, I am bottom priority given that I am not faculty and not doing this for my dissertation. We'll get a feel for # of subjects available to me in the UT Subject Pool probably by mid October. > > A simple article like this may be a necessary pre-cursor to a big > NLP & inferencing project anyway. Isn't it? Definitely. It's good to have a mix of starry eyed visionary long term projects in the background and some "low hanging fruit" in the foreground. > > > I am still quite unfamiliar with your theory. > > Even so, I want to decide a course of action. Unless you come up with > something better, I am going to plan my time according to the aim of > publishing an article addressing the question: "is there more > heterogeneity between categories than within categories?" That's a decent operating assumption. We could also consider a conference presentation. One can often get both a conference and a paper out of the same piece of research -- there are different aspects, different angles on a given project....There is also the cynical notion of "the publicon". The smallest publishable unit. People with physics backgrounds like to mention such things. > > I guess I need to write a research proposal now? Perhaps a one page > outline giving an overview of what we have, what we want to do with > it, and what we resources we need? Yeah, sure. I'm a little tentative bc I feel like brainstorming more, talking to my advisor, exploring other ideas, but my intuition tells me that there isa at least a 55 % chance that we will not come up with a better idea working with the same level of intensity over the next 2 weeks. > > I hope you can guide me through the process and perhaps help with > corralling human subjects. I _may_ be able to find English speaking > human subjects here in Nashik too. Perhaps it would add something to > use human subjects from two different countries? Yes. The cross cultural thing is quite the fad in psych nowadays. Getting human subjects is a bitch. You have to go through all these committees proving that the subjects won't be harmed. I don't know how this works in places like India. If one wants to publish in Cognition and Emotion what kinds of human subjects review must one complete? Well, I have access to Diane (my dissertation advisor) who is well ensconsced in the academic cliques that do all this stuff. > > I hope you find time to explore Aleader in a bit more depth. Here are > my predictions about what you will find: > > + The categories are more robust than you thought initially. > > + You will appreciate the elegance and computability of the model. Cool. How do I learn the model. Sorry, I'm afraid I'm asking an extremely obvious question. My life as an psychology intern -- just starting this week -- can be very stressful, so I might forget stuff. > > + You will see how the model can be extended or scaled up. > > + Simultaneous with your growing appreciation of the model, you will > begin to feel that most people will need some training to go beyond > the ten easy categories. I think this is a rather sticky problem. > I look forward to hearing your opinion about it. Yes. Hey, I gave one the very non-techie people supervising me a 1 minute description of your work. She said it sounds like, get this, "Movie Therrapy". The idea is you turn the volume down and watch a movie with a kid who has social skills problems. You ask the kid what emotions are the characters feeling. This is especially good for Asperger's or High Functioning Autistic kids. Or anyone who has trouble reading social cues. Many of the kids with whom I will be working have just these deficits. You might also be interested in the CASP and the DANVA. Both of these are instruments that neuropsychologist type people who I work with at UT use. And these instruments are used to detect impairments with social cue perception. Inferring emotion from prosody is somethign much different than the logical cognitive models that my dissertation was about. But your system is capable of assessing someone's prosodic perception. But your formal system is miles away from modeling prosodic perception. The kind of formal system for that is more like a markov process, a neural network...something that handles non-digital, non-symbolic representations. Gotta run. > > -- > .. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My! THe above is a "good sound bite" to have near the top some of web page. One that focuses on the clinical dimensions of your work. Bill > From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Aug 07 00:04:34 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19kc0w-0000tH-BF for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:04:34 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19kc0t-0000ql-85 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:04:31 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19kc0J-0000H3-L5 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:04:26 -0400 Received: from [207.106.49.21] (helo=wink.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19kc0I-0000Es-QD for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:03:55 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (texas.pobox.com [64.49.223.111]) by wink.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E46FD84; Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:03:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.249]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D3B45388; Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:33:44 +0530 Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:33:44 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: "William L. Jarrold" Message-ID: <20030807040344.GB1525@always.joy.eth.net> References: <20030729035533.GG619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: direction X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:04:32 -0000 [In this email, I have responded to only some of your points which seem urgent. I will respond to the remaining points later. One more note: For easy of discussion I assume "emotion" = "affective state".] On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:43:46PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > > > o I did not really get passed a thorough checkout of "celebrate > > > presence", i.e. Item #31. However, I did a random leap and ended up > > > looking at "You think I'm afraid of you big fuck?" from Goodwill > > > Hunting. This appeared to be classified as admiration (there was a box > > > checked next to "[+] admires [0]."). > > > > Perhaps it seems strange to classify this situation as "admires"? > > "Admires" is actually a _general_ category. > > > > This situation also classifies to the _specific_ category > > "haughty / arrogant" (which is a sub-type of admires). > > I don't see haughty as being a sub-case of admires, unless admires > includes self-admiration? Yes, it does. To be precise, the appraisal category is: "I am _expecting_ you to admire me." (I=Will, you=Chuckie, spoken in a pushy tone of voice) > Film clips are a nice way to illustrate an emotion concept by > way of several examples....Btw, it would help if your writings made the > following clear: > > o Any given character in a given film clip may be depicting > several different emotions at once. > > o A set of characters that are simultaneously present in a film clip > need not be depicting identical emotions. > > o The overall emotional tone of depicted by a film clip is something that > is distinct from what each of the individual characters in a film is > depicting. I agree. I don't have a list like that because I doubted whether I could imagine all the possible funny cases. Maybe I should just include your list and keep expanding it as I learn more. Which reminds me ... I have tried to explain this next point a few times. Tell me if you understand (or if you already understood previously): To achieve consistency, the Aleader appraisal instructs the analyst to follow some rules which narrow down on an immediate emotion. These rules are designed to turn random film into a repeatable, narrow, single emotion sequence, independent of the analyst. Obviously film is more than a single emotion sequence, but film is hard to analyze without some simplification. > My intuition tells me that you are into both the researchy and the > personal growth aspects of this CD. However, my intuition also tells > me that you have not yet developed separate strategies for these two > aspects. Correct. > One thing that would make it *much* easier to test gobs of subjects would > be to have them simply point there browser at a website. The CD thing can > be a pain....If you can do the website thing then you can do something > like Open Mind. How hard would it be to do your thing via a website > rather than a linux isa cd? My main worry with putting the whole thing on a web site is that I'll attract a cease & desist court-order for broadcasting copywrited material (the films). It doesn't matter that I am legally protected by "fair use for non-profit education". I simply can't afford to fight a court case, even if my actions are supported by the law. I believe that asking film studios for permission is also perilous. (Can you imagine my state of mind before I figured out how to make a bootable CD? I had this cool project, but it was impossible to show to anyone!) > It would probably be most interesting to compare > three different categorization schemes. Maybe yours, plus Ortony's > plus some scheme that should show now sig difference. Oh, OK. Cool. I wonder about the procedual methodology. I speculate that Aleader has a larger vocabulary of emotions (about 50) than most other schemes. Roseman96 identifies just 17 emotions. I believe OCC proposes 22 emotions. How should we deal with that? Would we carefully select examples which are classifiable in any of the three schemes? > We could also consider a conference presentation. One can often get > both a conference and a paper out of the same piece of research -- there > are different aspects, different angles on a given project....There is > also the cynical notion of "the publicon". The smallest publishable > unit. People with physics backgrounds like to mention such things. Yah! On the other hand, I already did a study here in India last year with about 25 students. The only problem was that I didn't measure anything interesting. I guess the trick is to find a middle ground between too big and too small. The other point is that, as an academic outsider, I suspect I will learn a lot from the publication process. I bet my whole presentation will improve tremendously just by immersing myself in academic procedures and protocol. > Yeah, sure. I'm a little tentative bc I feel like brainstorming more, > talking to my advisor, exploring other ideas, but my intuition tells > me that there isa at least a 55 % chance that we will not come > up with a better idea working with the same level of intensity over the > next 2 weeks. Part of the reason I'm pushing for a plan is that I have an appointment with a local psychology professor on Aug 11 (evening). I'll write up a draft research proposal. Hopefully you will have time to review it once prior to the meeting. > Getting human subjects is a bitch. You have to go through all these > committees proving that the subjects won't be harmed. I don't know > how this works in places like India. India is easy. If the basic research proposal is acceptable then I can probably get human subjects with a handshake. > If one wants to publish in Cognition > and Emotion what kinds of human subjects review must one complete? > Well, I have access to Diane (my dissertation advisor) who is well > ensconsced in the academic cliques that do all this stuff. Hrm, will a "human subjects review" also apply to any Indian subjects? > Cool. How do I learn the model. Sorry, I'm afraid I'm asking an > extremely obvious question. My life as an psychology intern -- just > starting this week -- can be very stressful, so I might forget stuff. + Read my comments on Roseman96. I emailed them yesterday. If you didn't receive them then let me know. I'll re-send. + Finish the tutorial. You don't have to go through _every_ situation. Just go through enough examples that you "get a feel" for the definition of each of the 10 easy emotion categories. + After that, I'm not sure what to suggest. Perhaps you can try reading the reference manual (the doc you printed out and looked at each page for 2 seconds). Make sure to look at the latest version though. I made some edits recently. It is somewhat shorter now. Here's the new url: http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/aleader/htdocs/aleader-ref.pdf -- .. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My! From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Aug 09 16:37:14 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19laSg-0001Sz-1S for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:37:14 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19laSd-0001RJ-7o for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:37:11 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19laS6-00014B-4U for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:37:09 -0400 Received: from [128.83.139.10] (helo=mail.cs.utexas.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19laS5-00013V-Oe for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:36:37 -0400 Received: from thor.cs.utexas.edu (billj@thor.cs.utexas.edu [128.83.130.22]) by mail.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h79KaYJ7021694; Sat, 9 Aug 2003 15:36:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from billj@localhost) by thor.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h79KaYVs025276; Sat, 9 Aug 2003 15:36:34 -0500 Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 15:36:34 -0500 (CDT) From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin In-Reply-To: <20030807040344.GB1525@always.joy.eth.net> Message-ID: References: <20030729035533.GG619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> <20030807040344.GB1525@always.joy.eth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org, "William L. Jarrold" Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: direction X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 20:37:11 -0000 On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > [In this email, I have responded to only some of your points > which seem urgent. I will respond to the remaining points later. > > One more note: For easy of discussion I assume "emotion" = > "affective state".] That is fine for email and agreements between you and I, but prolly (prolly = my silly shorthand for "probably". Some American's with regional accents might pronounce "probably" as "prolly") not good for getting published. Much ink has been spilled on what is an emotion. We need to have a good definition. Part of making a good definition is to say what are definition is NOT. The following blurb shows how Ortony et al have defined emotion. This is an excerpt from my master's thesis (well, technically it is from my prospectus) that was commented out from the final version... %The first step in this process is defining emotions as affectively %valenced construals of situations. However, they define emotion as %distinct subset of affect. (actually this is not from [OCC] but rather %from [Ortony, Clore and Foss 1987a]) The best examples of emotions are %those that a) refer to internal, mental conditions as opposed to %external or physical ones, b) are clear cases of states (I'm not exactly %sure what they mean by this), c) and have affect as opposed to behavior %or cognition as predominant focus. As these constraints are relaxed, %one gets non-emotions or poorer examples of emotions. Though the % ...As I recall OCC has a nice blurb on how "abandoned" does not refer to an emotion. Our paper should say that although "abandoned" does not refer to an Ortony like emotion but it does refer to an affective state. > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:43:46PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > > > > o I did not really get passed a thorough checkout of "celebrate > > > > presence", i.e. Item #31. However, I did a random leap and ended up > > > > looking at "You think I'm afraid of you big fuck?" from Goodwill > > > > Hunting. This appeared to be classified as admiration (there was a box > > > > checked next to "[+] admires [0]."). > > > > > > Perhaps it seems strange to classify this situation as "admires"? > > > "Admires" is actually a _general_ category. > > > > > > This situation also classifies to the _specific_ category > > > "haughty / arrogant" (which is a sub-type of admires). > > > > I don't see haughty as being a sub-case of admires, unless admires > > includes self-admiration? > > Yes, it does. > > To be precise, the appraisal category is: > > "I am _expecting_ you to admire me." > (I=Will, you=Chuckie, spoken in a pushy tone of voice) > OCC states that admiration, by definition, involves one person to feel good about something that another has/does. The emoter is focusing on the praiseworthiness of another's role in some situation. The emoter finds that the admired person is upholding some kind of standard. I find this to be a good coherent definition of the emotion (and the affective state) referred to by the word "admiration". As you state, the "You think I'm afraid of you big fuck" clip is about Will expecting Chuckie to admire him. I agree with that statement well enough for current purposes. However, I will add that the affective state depicted is *related to* admiration but it does not fit the OCC definition of admiration. Will is *expecting* Chuckie to admire him. Will is *not* focusing on the praiseworthiness of Chuckie's comportment in this situation. Expectations fit in via standards based emotions such as admiration and reproach. E.g. people are expected to hold up the standard of "exhibit good manners" or "don't lie" or "don't kill people." Back to the example at hand, Will is expecting Chuckie to admire him. Will is sitting there like, "come on you fuck, admire me!" and Chuckie is not complying with this expectation. In fact, I think Will is feeling the opposite of admiration. He is feeling reproach in this situation. Will expects his friends to uphold the standard of admiring those who deserve to be admired. And Will believes that he is deserving of admiration. Chuckie is "just sitting there". So, Will perceives Chuckie's role as violating the standard/expectation of "Admire those who deserve to be." According to OCC, if someone focuses thought on a another's blameworthiness with respect to a given standard/expectation and these thoughts are "above threshold" (kind of a handwave for present purposes) THEN reproach is felt. Hmm, let me do a "parity check" here to make sure we are on sort of in sync.... The original line from the film is "You think I'm afraid of you big fuck." [a] Does "you" refer to Chuckie or Will? Joshua, you basically stated that subtext of [a] was "I (Will) am _expecting_ you(Chuckie) to admire me." Correct? Well, regardless, I stand by the above paragraphs. Hmm, I used the word "parity check". Not sure if you have had the right courses/self study to know what I am referring. What kinds of classes did you take at CMU? Any significant self-study beyond that?...Now that I think of it, what computer languages do you know? > > Film clips are a nice way to illustrate an emotion concept by > > way of several examples....Btw, it would help if your writings made the > > following clear: > > > > o Any given character in a given film clip may be depicting > > several different emotions at once. > > > > o A set of characters that are simultaneously present in a film clip > > need not be depicting identical emotions. > > > > o The overall emotional tone of depicted by a film clip is something that > > is distinct from what each of the individual characters in a film is > > depicting. > > I agree. I don't have a list like that because I doubted whether > I could imagine all the possible funny cases. Maybe I should > just include your list and keep expanding it as I learn more. I'm not sure what you mean by "funny cases". I don't think there are another other elements to be added to the above 3 element list. > > Which reminds me ... I have tried to explain this next point > a few times. Tell me if you understand (or if you already > understood previously): Thanks for asking. Questions like this seem to be causing me to feel hopeful optimism about our working together. (-: So, to answer your question about your next point. I sort of understood it but not entirely. And I understand it slightly better having read the paragraph below. However, I still have some lack of understanding. See my questions below. > > To achieve consistency, the Aleader appraisal instructs the > analyst to follow some rules which narrow down on an immediate > emotion. These rules are designed to turn random film into > a repeatable, narrow, single emotion sequence, independent > of the analyst. Obviously film is more than a single emotion > sequence, but film is hard to analyze without some simplification. This helps. If you haven't already, put the above paragraph in your writings near the beginning. However, you will need more. There are three big open issues here. There is: Issue 1: "What rules govern cognitive appraisal?" (I.e. for a given agent how can we predict the affective states experienced for a given set of perceptions). Issue 2: "What rules goven affective mindreading a.k.a. cognitive empathy?" Issue 3: "Are there answers to issues 1 and 2 that can be consciously or deliberately used by people for the purposes of personal growth." Please mention these issues your (our?) writings. You (me too!) hypothesize that pursuing issue 3 is worth trying. Nonetheless, it could turn out that the answers to Issues 1 and 2 are so complex, so non-intuitive that there's not much personal growth that can be obtained. Please mention something like the above (copy it in is fine with me for present purposes) to the relevant part of your (our) writings. > > > My intuition tells me that you are into both the researchy and the > > personal growth aspects of this CD. However, my intuition also tells > > me that you have not yet developed separate strategies for these two > > aspects. > > Correct. Great. We have at least some resonance then. Bill's hopefullness/optimism potential just went up another notch. > > > One thing that would make it *much* easier to test gobs of subjects would > > be to have them simply point there browser at a website. The CD thing can > > be a pain....If you can do the website thing then you can do something > > like Open Mind. How hard would it be to do your thing via a website > > rather than a linux isa cd? > > My main worry with putting the whole thing on a web site is that > I'll attract a cease & desist court-order for broadcasting > copywrited material (the films). Well, you don't *have* to use films that have big expensive lawyers behind them, right? I mean you can shoot your own. You can find films that actually *want* more distribution. There are plenty of well made films that are very emotionally evocative. Student films are a good example. > > It doesn't matter that I am legally protected by "fair use for > non-profit education". I simply can't afford to fight a court > case, even if my actions are supported by the law. > > I believe that asking film studios for permission is also perilous. > Well, given how letigious US (espec California) attorney's are I am not surprised. > (Can you imagine my state of mind before I figured out how to make > a bootable CD? I had this cool project, but it was impossible to > show to anyone!) Are you saying that distribution via CD is legal but on the web is illegal? (If so I would feel at least slightly surprised if that were true). > > > It would probably be most interesting to compare > > three different categorization schemes. Maybe yours, plus Ortony's > > plus some scheme that should show now sig difference. > > Oh, OK. Cool. > > I wonder about the procedual methodology. Yep, me too. I'd like to see your answers to the above before pushing forward on that. > > I speculate that Aleader has a larger vocabulary of emotions > (about 50) than most other schemes. Roseman96 identifies > just 17 emotions. I believe OCC proposes 22 emotions. > > How should we deal with that? Would we carefully select > examples which are classifiable in any of the three schemes? Maybe something like that. We might just pick one theory and work with that for the time being. We might do a first study in which we ask people to say which scenes go with which emotions/affective states. But, we need to see what else has been done in this neck of the research woods. Also need to find out how many subjects we can get. Likewise, how many items can be in the study. I need to talk to my advisor. I need to read the research proposal you sent me. > > > We could also consider a conference presentation. One can often get > > both a conference and a paper out of the same piece of research -- there > > are different aspects, different angles on a given project....There is > > also the cynical notion of "the publicon". The smallest publishable > > unit. People with physics backgrounds like to mention such things. > > Yah! A nice thing about a conference is that the bar for participation can be lower. You can sometimes get by with just a proposal -- and get good feedback on how to improve it. Or you can get by with more preliminary data from a recently executed proposal. > > On the other hand, I already did a study here in India last year > with about 25 students. The only problem was that I didn't measure > anything interesting. I guess the trick is to find a middle > ground between too big and too small. Definitely. > > The other point is that, as an academic outsider, I suspect I > will learn a lot from the publication process. I bet my whole > presentation will improve tremendously just by immersing myself > in academic procedures and protocol. Yes. Btw, my advisor said that reviewers anonomously review stuff. Thus, to the extent that anonymity really can be preserved, it should not matter that you are not part of the academic regime. > > > Yeah, sure. I'm a little tentative bc I feel like brainstorming more, > > talking to my advisor, exploring other ideas, but my intuition tells > > me that there isa at least a 55 % chance that we will not come > > up with a better idea working with the same level of intensity over the > > next 2 weeks. > > Part of the reason I'm pushing for a plan is that I have an > appointment with a local psychology professor on Aug 11 (evening). > I'll write up a draft research proposal. Hopefully you will have > time to review it once prior to the meeting. Good. I'll tryta peek at it. But probably won't be able to respond until tommorrow Sunday the 10th. > > > Getting human subjects is a bitch. You have to go through all these > > committees proving that the subjects won't be harmed. I don't know > > how this works in places like India. > > India is easy. If the basic research proposal is acceptable > then I can probably get human subjects with a handshake. > > > If one wants to publish in Cognition > > and Emotion what kinds of human subjects review must one complete? > > Well, I have access to Diane (my dissertation advisor) who is well > > ensconsced in the academic cliques that do all this stuff. > > Hrm, will a "human subjects review" also apply to any > Indian subjects? Ask the professor with whom you meet. Another issue is can we use data in an anglo american journal if it was not obtained via anglo american human subjects review. By the way, these issues fall under "scientific research ethics." So, if you intelligently use that phrase in your language (e.g. with your professor) you will seem more like an insider, less like some whacko that the prof needs to be worried about. > > > Cool. How do I learn the model. Sorry, I'm afraid I'm asking an > > extremely obvious question. My life as an psychology intern -- just > > starting this week -- can be very stressful, so I might forget stuff. > > + Read my comments on Roseman96. I emailed them yesterday. If you > didn't receive them then let me know. I'll re-send. Eek. I have not read this yet. I believe I saw it in my mailbox. > > + Finish the tutorial. You don't have to go through _every_ > situation. Just go through enough examples that you "get a feel" > for the definition of each of the 10 easy emotion categories. Okay. > > + After that, I'm not sure what to suggest. Perhaps you can try > reading the reference manual (the doc you printed out and looked > at each page for 2 seconds). Great. Maybe I can get up to 20 seconds!!! Actually, I think I have since given it a closer read. Not sure. I'm happy enough with our current modus operandi. The key is to focus on deliverable writings -- proposals, drafts. Many important nuggets are in the above email. > > Make sure to look at the latest version though. I made some edits > recently. It is somewhat shorter now. Here's the new url: > > http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/aleader/htdocs/aleader-ref.pdf Oh, okay. I will send an email to myself and cc you with this to-do item in it. My email stack (with 1100 msgs) is a good workflow tracker for me. Bill > > -- > .. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My! > From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Aug 09 16:39:46 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19laV5-0006ro-SN for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:39:43 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19laV0-0006ij-5o for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:39:38 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19laUS-0005gT-Ms for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:39:35 -0400 Received: from [128.83.139.10] (helo=mail.cs.utexas.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19laUR-0005eC-PD for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 09 Aug 2003 16:39:03 -0400 Received: from thor.cs.utexas.edu (billj@thor.cs.utexas.edu [128.83.130.22]) by mail.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h79Kd1J7021888; Sat, 9 Aug 2003 15:39:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from billj@localhost) by thor.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h79Kd1xP025311; Sat, 9 Aug 2003 15:39:01 -0500 Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 15:39:01 -0500 (CDT) From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin In-Reply-To: <20030807040344.GB1525@always.joy.eth.net> Message-ID: References: <20030729035533.GG619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> <20030807040344.GB1525@always.joy.eth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org, "William L. Jarrold" Subject: [Aleader-dev] to do item: 2003-08-09 read/comment on recent manual X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 20:39:41 -0000 Bill, Don'[t forget to read/comment on this... http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/aleader/htdocs/aleader-ref.pdf Bill From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Aug 11 09:37:57 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19mCrz-0001hL-Cd for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:37:55 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19mCrm-0001cg-Df for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:37:42 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19mCrB-0001B6-SG for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:37:37 -0400 Received: from [207.106.49.21] (helo=wink.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19mCr9-00016w-Ub for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:37:04 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (texas.pobox.com [64.49.223.111]) by wink.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 497E9FF30; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:37:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.249]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76EA645419; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:36:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:06:49 +0530 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:06:49 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: "William L. Jarrold" Message-ID: <20030811133649.GB1250@always.joy.eth.net> References: <20030729035533.GG619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> <20030807040344.GB1525@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: direction X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:37:51 -0000 On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 03:36:34PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > > One more note: For easy of discussion I assume "emotion" = > > "affective state".] > > That is fine for email and agreements between you and I, but prolly > (prolly = my silly shorthand for "probably". Some American's with > regional accents might pronounce "probably" as "prolly") I'm living in India, but I moved here only ~3 years ago and all my education happened in USA. In short, I'm familiar with most email slang. ;-) I'll ask if I can't decode something. [Here is some dialog which is my response to an earlier email from you.] > > In any classification scheme, some variation is unavoidable. > > The challenge is to see how well we can minimize the variation. > > Yes, you want to minimize variation within a category. However the > more categories you have, the less manageable and or harder to verify your > theory becomes. Yes, in the limit as time approaches infinity you > will want to maximize the number of your categories. Actually it's not that bad. Roseman96's model doesn't include Aleader's appraisal of "phase". If we multiply the 17 Roseman emotions by 3 phases (before, during and after) then we get 51 emotions. So I argue that Aleader's model isn't much larger than Roseman96. > I doubt that "real" NLP takes up much more memory than Good Will > Hunting. How much memory does the average feature length film > require? Any idea off hand how much Cyc and or KM require? I took a look at LIWC. It looks like a superficial approach to NLP. I guess LIWC would easier than integrating with Erik Mueller's ThoughtTreasure or KM. On the other hand, I tend to prefer the deeper approach, even if it takes more effort. OK, maybe it's not impossible, even with my modest computing resources. It sounds like a lot of work though. I feel like I have already done too much work without any pay-off. I am eager to grab some low-hang fruit. After a few bananas, I'm willing to re-consider all the options. > You might also be interested in the CASP and the DANVA. > Both of these are instruments that neuropsychologist type people > who I work with at UT use. And these instruments are used to > detect impairments with social cue perception. Yah, I can definitely see applications for Aleader here. If we published the right type of article and tweak the software a bit then it should be an easy sell. I see that DANVA costs $250. If we start some kind of mail-order business then I bet we can get at least one order per month. ;-) > Inferring emotion from prosody is something much different than > the logical cognitive models that my dissertation was about. But > your system is capable of assessing someone's prosodic perception. > But your formal system is miles away from modeling prosodic perception. > The kind of formal system for that is more like a markov process, > a neural network...something that handles non-digital, non-symbolic > representations. Well .. my main interest is in empirically validating the Aleader aspraisal model. Assessing prosodic perception does not really interest me. On the other hand, all my source code is GPL'd so anyone is welcome to work on it. In an eariler email, you mentioned Clark Elliott. I guess I find his research a little bit strange. According to my philosophical beliefs, what is important is to teach people how to recognize the meaning of emotion. Teaching computers how to express emotion doesn't seem very interesting. I think John McCarthy would agree with me. A question about attribution: I took some of your email and dropped it into the Aleader manual, almost verbatim: "A given personality in a given film clip may be depicting several different emotions at once." Do you care about this? I don't mind adding your name somewhere. Let me know if I should do something. [And now back to today's back & forth.] > not good for getting published. Much ink has been spilled on what > is an emotion. We need to have a good definition. No doubt. If we need to discuss the definition of "emotion" then let's discuss it. > Part of making a good definition is to say what our definition is NOT. Agreed. > The following > blurb shows how Ortony et al have defined emotion. This is an excerpt > from my master's thesis (well, technically it is from my prospectus) that > was commented out from the final version... > > %The first step in this process is defining emotions as affectively > %valenced construals of situations. However, they define emotion as > %distinct subset of affect. (actually this is not from [OCC] but rather > %from [Ortony, Clore and Foss 1987a]) The best examples of emotions are > %those that a) refer to internal, mental conditions as opposed to > %external or physical ones, b) are clear cases of states (I'm not exactly > %sure what they mean by this), c) and have affect as opposed to behavior > %or cognition as predominant focus. As these constraints are relaxed, > %one gets non-emotions or poorer examples of emotions. Though the This is probably wrong, but I am tempted to write "a summary of the Aleader appraisal instructions." It is tautological that we are including all the emotions which can arise from any situation which can provide answers to our appraisal questions. Erm .. One point which may be helpful is that Aleader emotions happen "outside" in the sense that the emotion is a relation between two people. I speculate that Damasio has targetted his emotion research from the opposite angle, trying to measure the _physiology_ of emotion (& maybe thinking). I'm not very familiar with Damasio's work, so I'm just guessing here. > ...As I recall OCC has a nice blurb on how "abandoned" does not refer to > an emotion. Our paper should say that although "abandoned" does not refer > to an Ortony like emotion but it does refer to an affective state. Yah, that's a nice tie-in. I have taken note. > > > I don't see haughty as being a sub-case of admires, unless admires > > > includes self-admiration? > > > > To be precise, the appraisal category is: > > > > "I am _expecting_ you to admire me." > > (I=Will, you=Chuckie, spoken in a pushy tone of voice) > > OCC states that admiration, by definition, involves one person to feel > good about something that another has/does. The emoter is focusing on > the praiseworthiness of another's role in some situation. The emoter > finds that the admired person is upholding some kind of standard. I find > this to be a good coherent definition of the emotion (and the affective > state) referred to by the word "admiration". Yes, that is exactly how Aleader defines the general category of admiration. However, Aleader leaves the point-of-view unspecified. It sounds like OCC style admiration is always from the admirer's point-of-view. To contrast, Aleader considers the point-of-view (the admirer or the admired) as a refinement of admiration. > As you state, the "You think I'm afraid of you big fuck" clip is about > Will expecting Chuckie to admire him. I agree with that statement well > enough for current purposes. However, I will add that the affective > state depicted is *related to* admiration but it does not fit the OCC > definition of admiration. Will is *expecting* Chuckie to admire him. > Will is *not* focusing on the praiseworthiness of Chuckie's comportment > in this situation. I think you meant: "_Chuckie_ is *not* focusing on the praiseworthiness of _Will's_ comportment in the situation." (Will and Chuckie are reversed?) > Expectations fit in via standards based emotions such > as admiration and reproach. E.g. people are expected to hold up the > standard of "exhibit good manners" or "don't lie" or "don't kill people." > Back to the example at hand, Will is expecting Chuckie to admire him. > Will is sitting there like, "come on you fuck, admire me!" and Chuckie is > not complying with this expectation. In fact, I think Will is feeling the > opposite of admiration. He is feeling reproach in this situation. Are you saying that Will's 1. comment is a reaction to his prior feeling of reproach 2. comment is an expression of reproach 3. he feel reproach after making his comment ? (Roughly, I'm asking you to clarify "phase" in Aleader terms.) > Will > expects his friends to uphold the standard of admiring those who deserve > to be admired. And Will believes that he is deserving of admiration. > Chuckie is "just sitting there". So, Will perceives Chuckie's role > as violating the standard/expectation of "Admire those who deserve to be." > According to OCC, if someone focuses thought on a another's > blameworthiness with respect to a given standard/expectation and these > thoughts are "above threshold" (kind of a handwave for present purposes) > THEN reproach is felt. > > Hmm, let me do a "parity check" here to make sure we are on sort of in > sync.... Yah, sounds reasonable. I bet you'll pick [1] from the list above, but maybe not ... > The original line from the film is "You think I'm afraid of you > big fuck." [a] Does "you" refer to Chuckie or Will? Joshua, you > basically stated that subtext of [a] was "I (Will) am _expecting_ > you(Chuckie) to admire me." Correct? Correct. > Hmm, I used the word "parity check". Not sure if you have had the right > courses/self study to know what I am referring. Yah, I know a little bit about digital circuit design. While in junior college, I built a simple counter with wires, chips and solder. It was fun. > What kinds of classes did you take at CMU? I finished two years of a four year software engineering & math program. I left because the courses increasingly seemed irrelevant to what I was really interested in. Somehow I am not very good at doing things which don't interest me. > Any significant self-study beyond that? Yah, tons. That's one of the reasons I got bored at college. I was forced to take courses like "How to program in C" while I was working with a team to write a multi-user Star Trek game in my spare time. ;-) Maybe I should have applied for a PhD program or something, but it never entered my mind. > Now that I think of it, what computer languages do you know? My favorites are C and Perl. I also know Borne Shell, C++ (ugh), Bison, Lex, PCCTS, Lisp/Scheme, Prolog, Pascal, SML, Haskell, and a bunch of others which I temporarily forgotten. The question you should ask is: what computer languages do you _not_ know? Well .. KM, except that I almost know it now because I read the manuals. > I'm not sure what you mean by "funny cases". I don't think there > are another other elements to be added to the above 3 element list. Good then. Maybe the list won't expand. > > Which reminds me ... I have tried to explain this next point > > a few times. Tell me if you understand (or if you already > > understood previously): > > Thanks for asking. Questions like this seem to be causing me to feel > hopeful optimism about our working together. (-: In an attempt to increase your comfort level further, I would like to point out that I have some experience doing team projects: http://search.cpan.org/author/JPRIT/ The "Event" module is the most popular. While I did most of the coding, grep'ing the ChangeLog shows about 25 contributors to the project. > So, to answer your question about your next point. I sort of understood > it but not entirely. And I understand it slightly better having read > the paragraph below. However, I still have some lack of understanding. > See my questions below. Let's keep going until it's crystal clear. > This helps. If you haven't already, put the above paragraph in your > writings near the beginning. Done. > However, you will need more. There are three big open issues > here. There is: > > Issue 1: "What rules govern cognitive appraisal?" (I.e. for a given agent > how can we predict the affective states experienced for a given set of > perceptions). > > Issue 2: "What rules govern affective mindreading a.k.a. cognitive > empathy?" > > Issue 3: "Are there answers to issues 1 and 2 that can be consciously or > deliberately used by people for the purposes of personal growth." I'm not sure whether I understand the issue questions. I'll give it a try though: Issue 1: I've tried to spell-out the rules in the Aleader manual in the Classification chapter. Doing a KR model of the appraisal process would probably help to make the written instruction more precise. Issue 2: For Aleader, I think we need to flip this around: "Do the rules which govern cognitive empathy apply to our own personal cognitive appraisal process?" I have been assuming all along that the answer is simply "yes". Am I naive? I'm not sure how to discuss this issue, whose other opinion, compare, contrast?? Issue 3: I don't want to tackle this until I get some feedback about whether I understand issues 1 & 2. > Please mention these issues your (our?) writings. You (me too!) > hypothesize that pursuing issue 3 is worth trying. Nonetheless, it could > turn out that the answers to Issues 1 and 2 are so complex, so > non-intuitive that there's not much personal growth that can be obtained. > > Please mention something like the above (copy it in is fine with me for > present purposes) to the relevant part of your (our) writings. OK .. it probably goes in the introduction somewhere. > > > My intuition tells me that you are into both the researchy and the > > > personal growth aspects of this CD. However, my intuition also tells > > > me that you have not yet developed separate strategies for these two > > > aspects. > > > > Correct. > > Great. We have at least some resonance then. Bill's > hopefullness/optimism potential just went up another notch. Cool. I just want to emphasize again that my ears are wide open. Suggest how to make the project more scientific-ish and I'll probably go for it. If I forget, remind me. (The only thing I don't want to do is literally _destroy_ the writings I've done on philosophy and religion. I don't expect you to suggest that though.) > > My main worry with putting the whole thing on a web site is that > > I'll attract a cease & desist court-order for broadcasting > > copywrited material (the films). > > Well, you don't *have* to use films that have big expensive lawyers > behind them, right? I mean you can shoot your own. You can find films > that actually *want* more distribution. There are plenty of well made > films that are very emotionally evocative. Student films are a good > example. I selected the films quite a while ago. At the time, I was concerned about fine-tuning the appraisal model. I selected a film for two reasons: + I felt like the emotional portrayals reflected reality. + I liked the film enough that was willing to watch it hundreds or thousands of times. Unfortunately I didn't seriously consider re-distribution rights. 20/20 hindsight ... I am ready to analyze re-distributable films. Can you recommend any? My downlink is 8kbytes per sec so I'm not going to be much help in solving this problem. The films should be at least one hour long. We'll analyze only the first 20 minutes. Once we get new films, it will take time to go through the analysis. I estimate that 20 minutes of film takes me about a week to analyze. I wonder if we can put together an initial article using material only on the existing CD? I guess it depends how many human subjects we can corral from our respective colleges. > > (Can you imagine my state of mind before I figured out how to make > > a bootable CD? I had this cool project, but it was impossible to > > show to anyone!) > > Are you saying that distribution via CD is legal but on the web is > illegal? (If so I would feel at least slightly surprised if that were > true). I have been acting according to the belief (correct or not) that the chance I'll draw a lawsuit is proportional to how much noise I make about giving away films. At this point, I'm just seeking serious collaborators. If we use a web site to collect test results for a research study then a lot more people are going to notice what we're doing. > A nice thing about a conference is that the bar for participation can be > lower. You can sometimes get by with just a proposal -- and get good > feedback on how to improve it. Or you can get by with more preliminary > data from a recently executed proposal. Sure, but I don't want to do a lot of expensive air-travel unless it is _really_ going to be worth it. Round-trip USA-India tickets are about $1200 per seat (minimum) plus VISA hassels. Europe is somewhat cheaper, but not much. Contrast that with my extended family's yearly cost-of-living of about $6000. Do the math. ;-) > > The other point is that, as an academic outsider, I suspect I > > will learn a lot from the publication process. I bet my whole > > presentation will improve tremendously just by immersing myself > > in academic procedures and protocol. > > Yes. Btw, my advisor said that reviewers anonomously review stuff. Thus, > to the extent that anonymity really can be preserved, it should not matter > that you are not part of the academic regime. Yah, a research article seems like the way to go. > > Hrm, will a "human subjects review" also apply to any > > Indian subjects? > > Ask the professor with whom you meet. > > By the way, these issues fall under "scientific research ethics." So, if > you intelligently use that phrase in your language (e.g. with your > professor) you will seem more like an insider, less like some whacko that > the prof needs to be worried about. OK, I put it on my list. > > + Read my comments on Roseman96. I emailed them yesterday. If you > > didn't receive them then let me know. I'll re-send. > > Eek. I have not read this yet. I believe I saw it in my mailbox. Here's another reminder. ;-) > I'm happy enough with our > current modus operandi. The key is to focus on deliverable writings -- > proposals, drafts. Many important nuggets are in the above email. Agreed. -- .. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My! From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Aug 11 23:31:46 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19mPsw-0002Sy-Jg for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:31:46 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19mPsu-0002S7-6v for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:31:44 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19mPsN-0002Mu-A3 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:31:43 -0400 Received: from [207.106.49.21] (helo=wink.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19mPrL-0001qh-SZ for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:30:07 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (texas.pobox.com [64.49.223.111]) by wink.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6FA1002E; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:30:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.249]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F402453EE; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:30:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:00:00 +0530 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:00:00 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: "William L. Jarrold" Message-ID: <20030812033000.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> References: <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> <20030807040344.GB1525@always.joy.eth.net> <20030811074704.GA570@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: thanks and productization vs open source (was Re: pictures) X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:31:44 -0000 On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 10:07:50PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > One quick question though...(Btw, thanks V V much for pointing out that > the DANVA costs $250. Holly mollee!)...suppose we were to productize > something based on Aleader. Since it has knoppix inside (I am presuming > it has some sort of open source type licensing), does its licensing > disallow one to make a product based on knoppix? The short answer is "no". We can sell something. That's how Red Hat or Suse are able to sell Linux distributions. The only wrinkle is that we must provide complete source code. I think the only potential area for proprietary licensing is for films or film analysis. If I analyze some film then I could license the analysis as proprietary and ask each clinic or research group to pay a license fee to use it. > (I just re-watched part of _Revolution OS_ a wonderful documentary about > linux...my lack of knowledge of legal issues associated with open source > is woeful). That's the only film I purchased this year. ;-) -- .. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My! From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Aug 11 23:45:10 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19mQ5u-00085X-08 for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:45:10 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19mQ5s-00084l-3h for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:45:08 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19mQ5J-0006oU-Fa for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:45:04 -0400 Received: from [128.83.139.10] (helo=mail.cs.utexas.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19mQ5H-0006gy-PA for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:44:31 -0400 Received: from ahab.cs.utexas.edu (billj@ahab.cs.utexas.edu [128.83.144.15]) by mail.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7C3iTJ7016296; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:44:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from billj@localhost) by ahab.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7C3iSaN000398; Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:44:28 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:44:28 -0500 (CDT) From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin In-Reply-To: <20030812033000.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> Message-ID: References: <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> <20030807040344.GB1525@always.joy.eth.net> <20030811074704.GA570@always.joy.eth.net> <20030812033000.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org, "William L. Jarrold" Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: thanks and productization vs open source (was Re: pictures) X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:45:08 -0000 On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 10:07:50PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > > One quick question though...(Btw, thanks V V much for pointing out that > > the DANVA costs $250. Holly mollee!)...suppose we were to productize > > something based on Aleader. Since it has knoppix inside (I am presuming > > it has some sort of open source type licensing), does its licensing > > disallow one to make a product based on knoppix? > > The short answer is "no". We can sell something. That's how > Red Hat or Suse are able to sell Linux distributions. The only > wrinkle is that we must provide complete source code. Right. As I understand it RH (and presumablye Suse), make their money via documentation, support, handholding etc...So, that is one business model. How about other business models...E.g. can someone pervert things and make a small change to the source and sell their own version?...Can we anticipate this and add a twist to our own version of copyleft or whatever it is called that says if you make a gizmo based on our gizmo and sell it, you must give us 5% of whatever you make? Another issue is that in the psychological realm one needs to validate a thing on a large group of subjects. Sometimes this means getting norms so that a score based on a test administration can be clinically useful. This can be quite expensive. Psycorp (not to be confused with the homonym Cycorp) spends big bucks getting their tests validated from a broad sample of kiddos all over the US...Psychologists don't work for free because they have to pay lawyers for malpractice insurance. Well, maybe the reason I am delving into this is the following: if I can financially justify working on this now, then I can feel less guilty working on it. I get the sense you aren't interested much at all in productizability. > > I think the only potential area for proprietary licensing is for > films or film analysis. If I analyze some film then I could license > the analysis as proprietary and ask each clinic or research group to > pay a license fee to use it. > > > (I just re-watched part of _Revolution OS_ a wonderful documentary about > > linux...my lack of knowledge of legal issues associated with open source > > is woeful). > > That's the only film I purchased this year. ;-) Excellent. Glad to hear that. Bill p.s., you house looks amazing! > > -- > .. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My! > From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Aug 12 03:02:54 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19mTAw-00016x-T2 for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:02:34 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19mTAg-0000KW-Fw for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:02:18 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19mT9s-0006I7-Sl for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:02:01 -0400 Received: from [216.65.124.72] (helo=orb.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19mT9g-0005fe-Tq for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:01:17 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (unknown[64.49.223.111]) by orb.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC82A15647C; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:01:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.249]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B908545457; Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:01:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:30:59 +0530 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:30:59 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: "William L. Jarrold" Message-ID: <20030812070059.GA658@always.joy.eth.net> References: <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> <20030807040344.GB1525@always.joy.eth.net> <20030811074704.GA570@always.joy.eth.net> <20030812033000.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: productization vs open source X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 07:02:28 -0000 On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 10:44:28PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 10:07:50PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > > > One quick question though...(Btw, thanks V V much for pointing out that > > > the DANVA costs $250. Holly mollee!)...suppose we were to productize > > > something based on Aleader. Since it has knoppix inside (I am presuming > > > it has some sort of open source type licensing), does its licensing > > > disallow one to make a product based on knoppix? > > > > The short answer is "no". We can sell something. That's how > > Red Hat or Suse are able to sell Linux distributions. The only > > wrinkle is that we must provide complete source code. > > Right. As I understand it RH (and presumablye Suse), make their money > via documentation, support, handholding etc...So, that is one business > model. Yah, and I like that business model. I could go for that. > How about other business models...E.g. can someone pervert things and > make a small change to the source and sell their own version? No, that's exactly what the GPL is designed to prevent. > Can we > anticipate this and add a twist to our own version of copyleft or whatever > it is called that says if you make a gizmo based on our gizmo and sell > it, you must give us 5% of whatever you make? It might be possible, but that would slow down adoption of the test. That's why I would be against it. > Another issue is that in the psychological realm one needs to validate a > thing on a large group of subjects. Sometimes this means getting norms > so that a score based on a test administration can be clinically useful. > This can be quite expensive. Psycorp (not to be confused with the homonym > Cycorp) spends big bucks getting their tests validated from a broad sample > of kiddos all over the US...Psychologists don't work for free because > they have to pay lawyers for malpractice insurance. OK, but I believe the way to get into a big revenue stream is to convince a large number of psychologists that our test is extremely useful. > Well, maybe the reason I am delving into this is the following: if I can > financially justify working on this now, then I can feel less guilty > working on it. I get the sense you aren't interested much at all in > productizability. I am interested in productizability, but only _after_ we somehow generate a lot of demand. I can't predict or promise anything about monetary payback. Get your expenses down, income up, and try to increase your free time. That's what I did. On the other hand, if we can somehow show how test results are correlated with career performance (like Goleman) then there will be lots of opportunities: human resources, training, tutorials, and education. Our research has to be air-tight though. The really speculative stuff is in my writings on philosophy and religion. There is a potential jackpot there, but we still have a long way to go before we are even close. -- .. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My! From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Aug 14 19:51:50 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19nRnD-0005ns-4d for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:46:07 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19nRmt-0005h2-3t for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:45:47 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19nRly-00051J-5v for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:45:21 -0400 Received: from [128.83.139.10] (helo=mail.cs.utexas.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19nRll-0004zc-BH for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:44:37 -0400 Received: from thor.cs.utexas.edu (billj@thor.cs.utexas.edu [128.83.130.22]) by mail.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7ENiYJ7006757; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:44:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from billj@localhost) by thor.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7ENiYIx021198; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:44:34 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:44:34 -0500 (CDT) From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin In-Reply-To: <20030806031151.GC556@always.joy.eth.net> Message-ID: References: <20030729035533.GG619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> <20030806031151.GC556@always.joy.eth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org, "William L. Jarrold" Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: Roseman96 X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:46:05 -0000 Hi Joshua, A long overdue reply... First of all I am not that familar with Roseman. I've read one of his papers ways back. He is more empirically based than OCC. His goal is less computationally minded than OCC thus his model might be less rule-ifiable. Because of my lack of familarity with the theory these comments won't be worth much. On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 03:51:04PM +0530, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > > I will offer some comments on Roseman soon though, in any case. > > Another big email. :-) > > Here are my reactions while reading Roseman96. If you prefer to read > my conclusion first then skip to the bottom. I've tried to organize > my thoughts into three categories: > > 1. How Roseman's appraisal maps to Aleader's appraisal. > 2. What I agree with or don't understand. > 3. How Aleader's appraisal maps to Roseman's appraisal. > > +++ + +++ > > Here we go: > > 1. How Roseman's appraisal maps to Aleader's appraisal. > If you really want to do a good mapping you should say exactly how concepts being compared are the same or are different. > + The appraisal of probability corresponds pretty well with Aleader's > concept of tension. > > + The appraisal of "an event's control or influence potential by the > self" corresponds to Aleader's appraisal of intensity. I am still > refining the exact method of appraising intensity. Perhaps intensity > is the most subtle component among Aleader's menu of appraisals. > Maybe KR is needed to help me get rigorous. > > + I am confused by the terms "positive emotion" and "negative > emotion". It seems tautological that "improving things" is positive > and "made worse" is negative. On the other hand, I acknowledge that > some way is needed to differentiate positive & negative emotions. I > guess this roughly corresponds to Aleader's appraisal of individual > intention. > > + The appraisals of causation by self and causation by other are > represented implicitly in Aleader when the intention of two > individuals are combined to form the situational intention. > > 2. What I agree with or don't understand. > > Agree with: > > + I agree that the appraisal of "whether one can cope with an event" > is not relevant for differentiating emotion. > > + The appraisal of legitimacy and problem source are not represented > in Aleader because the emotions which they differentiate are > considered composite / sequential emotion patterns. Superficially, > I do not see a problem with modelling these emotion patterns, > but I have not attempted it. Your use of the term "emotion patterns" confuses me. Is an "emotion pattern" just a fancy name for "emotion"? > > + I think that surprise could be modelled in an Aleader as a sequence: > tension != relaxed then phase = after. (Don't worry about it if you > don't understand my notation. Surprise is just one emotion. We can > come back to it later.) > > Don't understand: > > + The idea of "motivational state" just seems confusing. Maybe I > don't understand what it is suppose to mean. I guess I agree that > motivational state needs some revision, as noted on page 261. Hm\m. I wonder what I can get this article. Do you have a URL handy or a copy of the article you can email? > > + I'm not sure whether I understand the appraisal "causation by > circumstances". Somehow it seems related to probability, but maybe > not. > > 3. How Aleader's appraisal maps to Roseman's appraisal. > > Aleader's appraisal has five main components: initiator, intention, > phase, tension, and intensity. > > + Both tension and intensity are well represented in Roseman's model, > as noted above. > > + Intention is somewhat represented, but Aleader's method of appraising > intention is more complex than Roseman's. > Occam's razor favors simplicity. Maybe you meant to say that Aleader allows for more richness or organicity or something like that. Whatever. Not a big deal. > + Aleader appraises phase. I didn't find phase in Roseman's model. If > you recall my eariler email, a precise explanation of "phase" can be > found at the end of KM's situation manual. Phase refers to whether the emotion refers to a past, present or future circumstance, right? > > + I did not find anything about initiator in Roseman's model. Perhaps > this is due to his experimental methodology. The subjects are asked > write about an event in which they were a participant. Therefore, the > point of view will usually (always?) be the subject's point of view. > To contrast, in Aleader there is no preset preference among the two > participants' point of view. I'm not getting you. Probably bc I am not familiar with Aleader theory. What are participants? What is initiator? I seem to remember that there is no paper that describes your theory. > > W Jarrold wrote: > > i believe there is a hole in the literature. there is a more general > > class of concepts that should be called "affective states". emotions > > are a focused subclass of these. ambandoned is a classic affective > > state which is not an emotion. > > Now I understand what you are talking about. Yes, I agree. Many of > Aleader's "emotions" are not what people typically expect as an > emotion. While Roseman seems to stick with a more traditional > definition of emotion, Aleader follows the affective state idea. > However, instead of inventing a term "affective state", I re-defined > emotion to mean what you call "affective state". I still remain > undecided whether it is better to introduce a new term or to re-define > "emotion". I don't think emotion is very well defined (in general) > and "affective state" is a mouth-full. What do you think? It depends on how the field has defined emotion. Do what the field does before arbitrarily redefining emotions. OCC defines emotion one way. How do others define it? Reading happens fast, so long term names are okay. > > OK, I suppose I should write some sort of conclusion now. > > Despite confidence in my own introspection & creativity, I had quite a > lot of anxiety approaching this type of article. What if Aleader's > appraisal model included a bunch of factors which turned out to have > poor empirical performance? That would be a problem. Yep. Research causes anxiety for the experimenter. One antedote is do design studies such that no matter what the outcome, the results are interesting. E.g. comparing Aleader to another model or models is one way to guarantee interestingnes. > Now my worry is > mostly finished. It is not always easy to gauge the similarity of > appraisal questions, but I find that my intuition is mostly supported > by the numbers. I look forward to reviewing OCC. Gerald Clore (the second author of OCC) once emailed me an article bc I had trouble retrieving it from the library. Maybe he'd do something similar for you if you had to wait too long. Bill > > -- > .. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My! > From MAILER-DAEMON Fri Aug 15 00:08:47 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19nVtP-0007FM-2o for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:08:47 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19nVtL-00076V-Kt for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:08:43 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19nVsn-0005dX-PZ for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:08:40 -0400 Received: from [207.106.49.21] (helo=wink.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19nVsn-0005b8-A3 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:08:09 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (texas.pobox.com [64.49.223.111]) by wink.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B5EFE0D; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:08:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.248]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC28F45457; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:38:03 +0530 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:38:03 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: "William L. Jarrold" Message-ID: <20030815040803.GE556@always.joy.eth.net> References: <20030729035533.GG619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> <20030806031151.GC556@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: Roseman96 X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 04:08:45 -0000 On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 06:44:34PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > First of all I am not that familar with Roseman. > ... I've written a reply, nothing all that exciting. I guess I'll wait until you finish the other email before sending it. -- .. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My! From MAILER-DAEMON Fri Aug 15 01:16:15 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19nWwK-0005ys-Fb for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:15:52 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19nWvT-0003jB-DL for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:14:59 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19nWuq-0001x1-0g for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:14:52 -0400 Received: from [128.83.139.10] (helo=mail.cs.utexas.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19nWuj-0001bi-BM for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:14:13 -0400 Received: from ahab.cs.utexas.edu (billj@ahab.cs.utexas.edu [128.83.144.15]) by mail.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7F5ECJ7022352; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:14:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from billj@localhost) by ahab.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7F5EC3D021946; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:14:12 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:14:12 -0500 (CDT) From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin In-Reply-To: <20030815040803.GE556@always.joy.eth.net> Message-ID: References: <20030729035533.GG619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> <20030806031151.GC556@always.joy.eth.net> <20030815040803.GE556@always.joy.eth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: Roseman96 X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:15:50 -0000 Okay. I'm fighting several "wars" right now, so I'm stressed extra thin. Btw, if you have any ideas on how I can get my income up, please do tell. Bill On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 06:44:34PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > > First of all I am not that familar with Roseman. > > ... > > I've written a reply, nothing all that exciting. I guess I'll wait > until you finish the other email before sending it. > > -- > .. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My! > From MAILER-DAEMON Fri Aug 15 09:57:52 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19nf5T-0008Ia-De for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:57:51 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19nf5N-0008Bb-ON for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:57:45 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19nf2C-00044a-Kg for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:54:59 -0400 Received: from [207.106.49.21] (helo=wink.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19nf1W-0002Vt-2q for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:53:46 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (texas.pobox.com [64.49.223.111]) by wink.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3796FF3E; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.248]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47506457E5; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:50:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:20:28 +0530 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:20:28 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: "William L. Jarrold" Message-ID: <20030815135028.GA552@always.joy.eth.net> References: <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> <20030806031151.GC556@always.joy.eth.net> <20030815040803.GE556@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] do we have the right stuff? X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:57:48 -0000 On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:14:12AM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > Okay. I'm fighting several "wars" right now, so I'm stressed extra thin. > > Btw, if you have any ideas on how I can get my income up, please do tell. The main thing is a burning desire. Here we are sitting around with the fantasy that we can _teach_ people about emotions. If we really know our stuff then we should be able to exhibit _some_ person success. Not a lot, but some at least. ;-) -- .. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My! From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Aug 16 18:05:22 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19o9Ao-0004Wq-1d for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:05:22 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19o9Al-0004Wd-M3 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:05:19 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19o9AF-000411-Pk for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:05:18 -0400 Received: from [128.83.139.10] (helo=mail.cs.utexas.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19o9AF-00040x-FR for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:04:47 -0400 Received: from oban.cs.utexas.edu (billj@oban.cs.utexas.edu [128.83.144.105]) by mail.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7GM4iJ7022880; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:04:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from billj@localhost) by oban.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7GM4iv8001642; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:04:44 -0500 Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:04:44 -0500 (CDT) From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin In-Reply-To: <20030721133036.GA619@always.joy.eth.net> Message-ID: References: <20030718015244.GA619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030718030835.GA984@always.joy.eth.net> <20030719085519.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> <20030721133036.GA619@always.joy.eth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org, "William L. Jarrold" Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: 2 papers of interest X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:05:20 -0000 On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 11:18:02PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > > Two papers. One is about testing and has some simple emotion inference > > paths in CycL. Another is about emotion KR methodology and probably > > has some emotion inference paths. Would love to hear any comments. > > Might help with your understanding of how to teach Cyc about emotion. > > I mostly understand how to teach a KR system about emotion. > What really helped was looking at the code you wrote for KM. > Seeing code that works is a hundred times better than some > design proposal & hand-waving. I still haven't finished > reading the code or the KM manuals but I will eventually. > > I guess my reaction to your papers is that I don't consider > the KR part of the the project to be the most interesting part. > I know I need to do KR, but what is interesting to me is the > performance of the emotion predictor. I believe I am really > breaking new ground. I feel like I am getting better > repeatability with this model than with other models I've seen. > Even recognizing the importance of repeatability seems to be > innovative, relative to the literature I have read. Reliability is jargon in psychometrics that refers to pretty much the same thing to which you are referring. It should not be hard to studies that have looked at the reliability of judging emotion in pictures of people's facial expression. It seems to me that one problem with the scale of your problem (looking at raw slices of film rather than just e.g. faces) is that any one character looks like they are experiencing several emotions at once. > > I admit that this is all subjective. As the author, I am > probably the person least trusted to make these kind of > subjective judgments. But there it is. > > Given that you've authored a bunch of papers on the KR of > emotions, it seems to me that you are more interested in the KR > issues than in a particular cognitive model of emotion. Would > it be correct to say that you don't care about the cognitive > model, per se, but rather how to do a good KR? Yah, that might be true. What would really rock my world is an AI that could infer the emotions felt by characters in stories as well as a 4 year old. Right, I don't care so much how it does it, what theory is inside. I just want the damn thing to work. > Even if this is > your perspective and interest, I think you will find that the > Aleader model is already well suited to KR. To contrast, you > had to modify and narrow Ortony to make it tractible for KR. More precisely, to make it tractable for a small short term KR project. I believe that KR can encompass nearly all of OCC, but it will take zillions of person years of effort to get there. > Furthermore, I speculate that you looked at a lot of even less > suitable cognitive models before selecting Ortony. Actually I just saw an article in AI Magazine that reviewed OCC. That was maybe around 1993. I focused on OCC because it seemed good enough, the AI community was behind it. So many people have told me (including myself) that I need to focus that I put on blinders and marched forward. > > So whether you are interested in the KR aspect or a model > that feels good, I think the Aleader model is a good choice. ;-) Good. > > > Thanks for your emails today. More later (hopefully Sunday, my time). > > -- > Victory to the Divine Mother!! after all, > http://sahajayoga.org http://why-compete.org > From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Aug 16 19:23:00 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19oANv-0001Yr-4e for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:22:59 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19oANn-0001On-86 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:22:51 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19oANE-0000cw-AA for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:22:47 -0400 Received: from [128.83.139.10] (helo=mail.cs.utexas.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19oAND-0000cr-S7 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:22:15 -0400 Received: from oban.cs.utexas.edu (billj@oban.cs.utexas.edu [128.83.144.105]) by mail.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7GNMDJ7004414; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:22:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from billj@localhost) by oban.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7GNMDuj002614; Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:22:13 -0500 Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:22:13 -0500 (CDT) From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin In-Reply-To: <20030725134335.GF880@always.joy.eth.net> Message-ID: References: <20030725011240.GB619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030725134335.GF880@always.joy.eth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org, "William L. Jarrold" Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: busy busy X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 23:22:57 -0000 Shoot, pine tells me I responded to this but I don't think I did. So I'm going to respond again... On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > [I am CC'ing to aleader-dev because other folks might like to > read this and I want a permenant record. You'll have to tell > me explicitly if you don't want something broadcast through > a mailing list.] Okay. > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:20:54AM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > > My life has been and probably always will be frantic and behind. > > ... I am > > hoping beyond all hope to get serious about responding to your emails > > over the weekend. I took on a neuropsych assessment today that > > will spill over into tommorrow (Friday). > > > > .. I'll give you some random thoughts that have been > > on my mind... > > > > Here's one question...You seem to say there is only one objective > > emotional response to a given situation. You don't seriously > > believe this do you? > > No, but ... Okay, it is very important to make this clear in your writings. > > > For starters, some situations make one feel happy and sad. There > > is the idea of mixed emotions. > > Yah, yah. With this idea of "one correct objective emotional > response," I am aiming to make the analysis more tractable and > postpone generativity. Here's how: > > I ask people to narrow down on the emotion of shortest duration > ("duration" with respect to time) and ignore emotions which have > longer duration. This actually works pretty well. I'd estimate > that about 70-80% of film simplifies nicely this way. However, > there are cases when there is still more than one emotion going > on at the same time even after narrowing down on the immediate > emotion. For example: > > What if I am struggling against a pick-pocket? Both > participants are trying to take initiative. This must > produce two different emotions (one for each person) > because initiative is one of the key-questions of the > classification scheme. > > Actually there are quite a few different kinds of exceptional > circumstances. The pick-pocket is easy to explain. I have > developed some rules describing how to classify exceptional > circumstances. Using these rules, I estimate that 95-98% of a > film can be classified unambiguously. This is how Aleader is > used to build a library of narrow, unambiguous emotion > classifications. The above is a little unclear. In your writings, you should list a few, 2-3 of the exceptional cases. One trivial case of multiple emotions is when there is more than emoter in a given film clip. List a few other exeptional cases delineated by your theory and provide examples, spell it all out in text. Make up a story if you need to but the best examples are "real", i.e. come from someone other than yourself -- e.g. the script of some film. > > Now we can try to scale the model up to see how well it works > in the general case. I have made some steps in this direction > by introducing an explicit notation for tracking conversation. > However, I am not sure how much more the model can expand > without being forced to admit multiple correct interpretations > (a.k.a. generativity). At some point, generativity > comes back again because there just isn't a single correct > way to understand a complex layered emotional story. Hrmmm...You are making me think about generativity in a new way, a little more deeply....I think when a person emotes (i.e. experiences an affective state) they are experiencing a single thing. Generativity comes in when we are building a theory and when we humans are mindreading. First let me talk about theories and AIs....Theories and AI's are generally oversimplied. The stuff they create when they attempt to predict another's emotion is not rich and complex and varied and creative and nauanced as what real humans do...We desire our models (i.e. our theories and our AI systems) to be generative because they are more believeable, more lifelike, more flexible and deeper. Okay, now let me talk about humans...So, I suppose that the wisest affective mindreader would come up with a very precise unitary description of the feelings of the mindreadee...However, humans of non-extra-ordinary emotional intelligence need to not jump to conclusions too quickly. We must be open to the fundamental unknowability of the Other's experience. We must resist the hubris of believing we know their state exactly when we do not. To fall prey to this error, is to commit the cognitive distortation that Beck refers to as Mindreading. Yes, only God knows with absolute certainty what a given emoter is feeling. On the other hand, a mentally retarded person with autism probably lacks any kind of decent ability to mindread. So there is the type of mindreading needed to be a normal functioning human and there is Beck's pathological mindreading. When does normal mindreading become pathological? Hrmmm, good question. A nice messy and difficult issue needing sussing out! One of many such issues that plagues the vague and touchy feely field of counseling psychology. An issue to which I throw up my hands and want too avoid. Too hard! Too many prickly counseling psychology personalities who go non-linear when you engage in debate to deal with in the process of coming to the truth. (Don't give in to my cowardice) Finally there is the issue of training software and emotional intelligence. I suppose that some of us have a very keen sense of cognitive empathy yet are not overly prideful, overly at risk of being Beck's pathological mindreader. Although we must avoid the hubris of Beck's mindreader, we must also avoid mental retardation! We must help affectively challenged Asperger's individuals and the like. I suspect that if the appropriate caveats against pathological mindreading are given, I suspect that then we can move forward with the idea that it is useful to come up with a right and a wrong regarding cognitive empathy. So, deep down, I think I am on your side RE training software that INSISTS on the ONE CORRECT OBJECTIVE reading of film clips. But I want to carefully delimit this to not applying to all circumstances or contexts. In the context of training, of deepening our cognitive empathy, our ability to read facial expressions etc, THEN it DOES make sense to talk about such OBJECTIVE, unitary or repeatible judgments. But this skill must not be used in the service of making us more rigid, inflexible or unidimension. Phrew, it was good to get that out. I hope it makes sense. It seems important to me. I hope you and I both try to grok it fully. I suggest stuffing it into the appropriate part of your writings, documentation whatever. In time, it can be cleaned up and also fleshed out with real examples. This year while I am on internship dealing with the trials and tribulations of poor little special ed kiddos (some of whom are socially challenged) at Bridgepoint ELementary I will have excellent real world grist for this mill. Please keep pressing me for details. Such real world grist is make or break to the real success of this project. > > On the other hand, please recognize that if we stick with > Aleader's simple, narrow view of emotion then we still > get useful classifications ("useful" meaning that the > classifications subjectively feel correct) without > resorting to generativity. Well, I guess I disagree. I think that while building a useful believable, scalable AI model we will go through a phase of more and more generativity. This will be progress. Over time, the plethora of constructions produced will winnow down as the system gets wiser....Oh shut up BIll, how can you predict the future of how the model will develop over time! (sorry, hope you don't mind me yelling at meself while I write). This is not to say that a useful educational tool that forces the student to pick the ONE BEST TRUE interpretation of a given seen can not be built. However, if there is any AI inside such a tool, it will be trivial, a pale shadow of a real model. Alas, given that you and I have finite time the AI goal and the build educational software goal seem to be in tension....But fear not, there may be sweet spots where both goals combine....To brainstorm, scenario generation is one such area where AI and educational software may meet. > > I am curious to know how much of Ortony works without > generativity, and how much of a role generativity plays > in the full version of Ortony. Ah. I can email you a paper in which Ortony mentions generavity. It was a 2000 or 2001 paper. No mention as I recall is made of G in OCC. Make sure I track that down and send it to you. Nonetheless, I think I make a much bigger deal about G than he does....Now to your question, I think emotional intelligence requires generativity. Okay, fine, say we've got Joe The Affective Sage here. Sure, Joe will watch "Good Will Hunting" and like totally peg the single emotion being depicted by each character in every single frame. BUT, Joe will also be able to generate scaddzillions of alternatives. He will mull over a few difficult scenes in his mind..."hmm, those tears could be joy but it could be anguish too...or maybe it is just the physical pain...or the tiredness or..."...Thus, to answer your question, in my opinion, OCC will not work w/o G. G is essential to a robust, deep, believable implemtation of G. > > Perhaps the Ortony model can be stacked on top of the Aleader > model to produce a fully general theory? Stacked on top? More likely mashed together...To quote Clark Elliot, "OCC is a thing of beauty." Although I still am not familiar with Aleader, my intution is that it too is a thing of beauty. My own belief is that a real working theory will be a Rube Goldberg like hairball. About as ugly as a neurofibrolary tangle. I believe what Marvin Minsky, author of Socieity of Mind, believe. I.e. that the Mind is a halphazard assemblage of agents, much like New York City at rush hour. Or to quote Marvin, "like California on fire." Btw, there his a *huge* amount of "background common sense" knowledge required in order to make such a theory work. > > > Here's another one...You really need to have a controlled list of terms. > > How many terms are emotion terms? 50, 5, 100, 500, 1000? > > Hrm .. I thought I explained in the prototype research paper > that emotion _terms_ are secondary to the collection of > examples of a given emotion. In other words, emotion > categories are defined by example and not by _terms_. I disagree. To be sure, note: a term is not a word. Look at is this way. You've got a collection or bundle or set of 57 examples that "define" happiness or whatever. Well, I need a pointer to that bundle. That pointer is a term. Maybe I'll be like a C program and call that bundle 59092928098092. Or maybe I'll be like a human, albeit a silly one, and call it "snicklefritz". Or maybe I'll be a like Ortony and call it "Fears Confirmed" (note capitalization). Note that given the vagueness, ambiguity and complexity inherent in natural languaage, the english term "fears confirmed" probably refers to a different set of experiences than the official OCC tem "Fears Confirmed"...People at Cycorp (www.cyc.com) would reify "Fears Confirmed" and to them it would be refered to as #$FearsConfirmed. Does this make sense? Put it this way; a term is a label or name or pointer for a category. Btw, there is a big debate in cog sci RE are concepts defined by classical category theory type stuff or are they more fuzzily defined by prototypes. My belief is that when the theoriticians shut up and get to work on building ontologies that work, they will see that what they create will be so complex that it can either be viewed as a category or as a prototype. Well, whatever, I'm digressing a little. The main idea is that this issue is basically academic. A working model will silence all debates on whether the categories are example based or rule based. Btw, you are writing in KM, right? I believe you are writing a rule-based definition. Maybe if it gets complicated enough it act like a nice fuzzy human like example based system. > > So far, the Aleader classification scheme has partitioned > examples into about 50 categories. I expect another 10-20 > categories as our survey expands, but not much more than that. Personally, I'd shy away from predictions about how big and complex your set of categories will be when the thing is done. But, heck maybe all my flaming about complexity will be shown to be wrong. > > If we increase the complexity of the model by tracking > conversations then we may find quite a lot (10s or 100s) > of recognizable emotion sequences Sure. > > Even so, I deny that I have identified any "emotion terms." > > Does that address your question? I'm not sure. How does this aspect of the debate seem to you now? Also, in a previous message, quoted above, I said you should control the number of terms...Or "How many terms are emotion terms? 50, 5, 100, 500, 1000?"....Hmm, I wonder what I was driving at? I think what I was driving at was this: I don't have a clear sense of what is inside and outside of the definition of what is an emotion. My sense is that it will help publishability to define what is and what is not an emotion. It would be useful to give examples.... - what is clearly inside the category of "emotion" - what is just barely inside the category of "emotion" - what is just barely outside the category of "emotion" - what is just clearly outside the category of "emotion" ...but as I have said earlier, I kind of prefer the word "affective state". > > > You should buy > > _The Cogntitive Structure of Emotion_ by Ortony Clore and Collins. > > Yah, I should .. OK, I spoke with a friend about a good book shop. > I'll have a copy within a few days. > > > My friend Dan probably has a CD burner. Maybe I can get him interested > > in this project. > > -- > Victory to the Divine Mother!! after all, > http://sahajayoga.org http://why-compete.org > From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Aug 17 03:30:27 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19oHzf-0001yp-DG for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:30:27 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19oHzc-0001vX-Gw for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:30:24 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19oHz6-0001Pd-F1 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:30:23 -0400 Received: from [207.106.49.21] (helo=wink.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19oHz6-0001P8-6N for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:29:52 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (texas.pobox.com [64.49.223.111]) by wink.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87285FD62; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:29:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.248]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6176E45356; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:29:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:59:43 +0530 Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:59:43 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: "William L. Jarrold" Subject: Re: [Aleader-dev] statement of the problem Message-ID: <20030817072943.GB629@always.joy.eth.net> References: <20030725011240.GB619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030725134335.GF880@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 07:30:25 -0000 On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 06:22:13PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > Shoot, pine tells me I responded to this but I don't think I did. > So I'm going to respond again... You glossed over it the first time. This time I really like response & discussion. > ability to read facial expressions etc, THEN it DOES make sense to > talk about such OBJECTIVE, unitary or repeatible judgments. But this > skill must not be used in the service of making us more rigid, inflexible > or unidimension. > > Phrew, it was good to get that out. I hope it makes sense. It seems > important to me. I hope you and I both try to grok it fully. I suggest > stuffing it into the appropriate part of your writings, documentation > whatever. Yah, ultimate! Your discussion is really good. I'm looking forward to fleshing this out. > emotional intelligence requires generativity. Okay, fine, say we've got > Joe The Affective Sage here. Sure, Joe will watch "Good Will Hunting" and > like totally peg the single emotion being depicted by each character in > every single frame. BUT, Joe will also be able to generate scaddzillions > of alternatives. He will mull over a few difficult scenes in his > mind..."hmm, those tears could be joy but it could be anguish too...or > maybe it is just the physical pain...or the tiredness or..." Not only do I agree, but I have already identified specific examples in both Good Will Hunting and Star Wars. -- A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://www.nongnu.org/aleader From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Aug 17 03:53:41 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19oIM9-00073a-6E for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:53:41 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19oIM7-00071x-0g for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:53:39 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19oILa-0006cK-28 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:53:37 -0400 Received: from [208.210.125.55] (helo=ghost.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19oILZ-0006cF-RT for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:53:05 -0400 Received: from wink.pobox.com (wink.pobox.com[207.106.49.21]) by ghost.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0986F294205 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:50:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from texas.pobox.com (texas.pobox.com [64.49.223.111]) by wink.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CCCBFE11 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:44:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.248]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B794E45356 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:44:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:14:28 +0530 Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:14:28 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Message-ID: <20030817074428.GC629@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Subject: [Aleader-dev] [billj@cs.utexas.edu: one more thing] X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 07:53:40 -0000 ----- Forwarded message from "William L. Jarrold" ----- From: "William L. Jarrold" To: vishnu@pobox.com Cc: billj@cs.utexas.edu Subject: one more thing Joshua, It occurs to me that some of what I have recently said boils down to some to do items... E.g.... - decide on source of aleader film clips. should they be motion picture film clips, or should we make our own. (i've emailed you RE the legal issues here, but i have yet to read any response to this, probably due to my being laggard) - think of example/cases of bad mindreading due to low emotional intelligence, overzellous mindreading in Beck's sense, or good useful mindreading. we can keep an eye out of these cases in ourw every days lives, in our free associations and in the movies we watch. Bill From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Aug 18 01:12:14 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19ocJS-00068q-Gt for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:12:14 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19ocJP-00067s-QC for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:12:11 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19ocIq-0005iB-R6 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:12:08 -0400 Received: from [216.65.124.72] (helo=orb.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ocIq-0005fs-1H for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:11:36 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (texas.pobox.com[64.49.223.111]) by orb.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C30E61560D0; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:11:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.248]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52C0453EE; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:11:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:41:27 +0530 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:41:26 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: billj@cs.utexas.edu Message-ID: <20030818051126.GD619@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] lexicon article X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 05:12:12 -0000 In reading this article, I see the source of many of your previous questions. Now I feel prepared to offer you a good discussion of the issues. -- A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/aleader From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Aug 18 01:28:57 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19ocZd-0006FW-Bx for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:28:57 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19ocZa-0006ES-Db for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:28:54 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19ocZ3-00062H-AX for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:28:52 -0400 Received: from [128.83.139.10] (helo=mail.cs.utexas.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ocZ2-0005v8-N8 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:28:20 -0400 Received: from ahab.cs.utexas.edu (billj@ahab.cs.utexas.edu [128.83.144.15]) by mail.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7I5S7J7009454; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:28:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from billj@localhost) by ahab.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7I5S7CE011078; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:28:07 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:28:07 -0500 (CDT) From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin In-Reply-To: <20030818051126.GD619@always.joy.eth.net> Message-ID: References: <20030818051126.GD619@always.joy.eth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org, "William L. Jarrold" Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: lexicon article X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 05:28:55 -0000 Hey, How do you convert Word to something linux readable? Star office? I have yet to install that. Any cahnce you could email me a unix readable version. Today a counselor friend of mine told me about a lecture she went to about using film as a vehicle for something related to psychological growth. I doubt it is related to Aleader and I forgot more precisely what the lecture was about. I'll get the name of this dude (she thought he's at Emory U and will check) from her and we can ask him how he handles the legal issues of film content. I seriously doubt you can include a whole film (as you currently do) and not get in trouble. But maybe you can get a way with lotsa little clips. Else we can make our own films OR have people load their own films and find clips as an exercise. Sorry, no time to really catch up today. I'm so far behind on so many things. I'm fighting the good fight though. I'm glad to get my inbox below 1000 today. Ya hoo!! Bill On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > In reading this article, I see the source of many of your previous > questions. Now I feel prepared to offer you a good discussion > of the issues. > > -- > A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/aleader > From MAILER-DAEMON Mon Aug 18 01:51:45 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19ocvh-0005Dg-Gh for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:51:45 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19ocvg-0005D6-C0 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:51:44 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19ocv9-00054n-Hc for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:51:42 -0400 Received: from [216.65.124.72] (helo=orb.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ocv0-00051u-HB for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:51:02 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (texas.pobox.com[64.49.223.111]) by orb.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF40F1561A2; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:51:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.248]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024EB45356; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:51:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:20:57 +0530 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:20:57 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: "William L. Jarrold" Message-ID: <20030818055057.GF619@always.joy.eth.net> References: <20030818051126.GD619@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: films X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 05:51:44 -0000 On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 12:28:07AM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > I seriously doubt you can include a whole film (as you currently do) and > not get in trouble. But maybe you can get a way with lotsa little clips. I tried doing lots of little clips. It just doesn't work. I estimate that 25% of the clips need at least 1 minute of context to make sense to people. > Else we can make our own films OR What about films by independent film-makers, as you mentioned before? > have people load their own films and find clips as an exercise. To me, this sounds like the most difficult (impossible?) option. Maybe you have a novel plan in mind which will make it work. > Sorry, no time to really catch up today. I'm so far behind on so many > things. I'm fighting the good fight though. I'm glad to get my inbox > below 1000 today. Ya hoo!! That's the spirit! :-) -- A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/aleader From MAILER-DAEMON Tue Aug 19 06:14:56 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19p3Vv-00018U-NW for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:14:55 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19p3Vs-00016T-Be for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:14:52 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19p3VL-0000z8-HF for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:14:50 -0400 Received: from [208.210.125.56] (helo=gretel.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19p3Tc-0008Lb-BN for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 06:12:32 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (texas.pobox.com[64.49.223.111]) by gretel.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AA9B7F141C; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 05:08:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.248]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61FA145359; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 05:04:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:34:50 +0530 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:34:50 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: billj@cs.utexas.edu Message-ID: <20030819090450.GD1504@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] more about KM X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:14:53 -0000 I didn't realize what you meant when you said about KM that: "It is also frame based. This can cause problems." Ugh. The representation stuff and unification are cool. BUT, trying to do any non-trival inferencing is a chore. I mean, is it really true that I can only make prepositions like (:triple f s v)? That's nuts. I'd be forced to move half of the stuff into lisp and call back & forth. Maybe that's what I'll end up with. Do you have any experience with PowerLoom? I'm going to play with it for a few days and see how it feels. -- A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/aleader From MAILER-DAEMON Wed Aug 20 03:21:25 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19pMsT-0001Tk-O7 for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:55:29 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19pMN4-0007P7-9a for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:23:02 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19pM1Z-0007Vo-Hx for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:01:22 -0400 Received: from [216.65.124.72] (helo=orb.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19pIRL-0005fp-VW for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:11:12 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (texas.pobox.com[64.49.223.111]) by orb.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 683751562A3; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:11:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.248]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709CB45356; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:11:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 20 Aug 2003 07:41:06 +0530 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 07:41:06 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: "William L. Jarrold" Message-ID: <20030820021106.GB615@always.joy.eth.net> References: <20030819090450.GD1504@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: more about KM X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 06:55:27 -0000 On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 06:31:42PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > > I mean, is it really true that I can only make prepositions > > like (:triple f s v)? That's nuts. I'd be forced to move > > half of the stuff into lisp and call back & forth. Maybe > > that's what I'll end up with. > > I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. There are > several possible interps. One is that you have many non-binary > predicates in your model. Is that what it is? Yes, I think so. I bet OCC does too. > It is very likely that you are on the "same page" regarding this, but > just to be sure....The :triple thing is only necessary for certain stuff. > Many rules can be written without it....but as I said, you already know > that, right? Yah, but any predicate is attached to a frame slot, correct? > Anyway, this reaction of yours argues in favor of CycL. I am much more > familiar with Cyc than KM. > > > Do you have any experience with PowerLoom? I'm going to play > > with it for a few days and see how it feels. > > No experience. Chances are pretty good that it sucks compared to CycL. > What is its licensing? Complete source code is available for non-commercial use. (Licensing is the only reason I'm not immediately using Cyc.) PowerLoom seems much more similar to Cyc than KM. I'm going to play with it more today. In any case, it's probably more important to finish up the rest of the pending emails before taking a look at PowerLoom. I'm just giving you a clue what I'm working on. -- A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/aleader From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Aug 21 04:40:33 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19pX7h-0006bf-Uj for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:51:53 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19pRe3-0007I8-3q for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:00:55 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19pP7E-0007tz-Kh for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 05:19:23 -0400 Received: from [207.106.49.21] (helo=wink.pobox.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19pLoy-0003EV-7K for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:47:48 -0400 Received: from texas.pobox.com (texas.pobox.com[64.49.223.111]) by wink.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FFC4FDAD; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:47:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.248]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B29445356; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:47:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:17:43 +0530 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:17:43 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: "William L. Jarrold" Message-ID: <20030820054743.GE1044@always.joy.eth.net> References: <20030818051126.GD619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030818055057.GF619@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: films X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:51:52 -0000 On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 12:31:51AM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > I have a great potential idea...I could make films of the kids under my > charge at the elementary school. Just saw the kids for the first time. > I can't believe I am actually doing this. I do not self-identify with > elementary school teachers in the slightest but they are very nice and > seem quite good at what they do. I'm not sure how I can fit in. I'll > have to see on the human subjects or whatever aspects, get a feel for what > this school is like. I'll ask my supervisor tommorrow. Keep after me on > this. > > Johny can re-analyze his choices by watching interactions of the > playground involving himself and maybe even others. But how can I film > the situation unobtrusively? I don't want to sound discouraging, but ideally you need more than one camera (2 minimum) set up on tripods recording from different angles. > Hmm, here's a way out idea. I sorta know > the director of photography of films like Dazed and Confused, Before > Sunrise and Slacker. Maybe he would have something interesting to say? Sure, ask! > Anyway, I'll start by asking supervisor!!! -- A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/aleader From MAILER-DAEMON Thu Aug 21 21:39:56 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19q0qq-0000eK-JA for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:36:28 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19pnlV-0002Hl-Gf for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 07:38:05 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19pmBm-0005US-Ft for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:57:37 -0400 Received: from [128.83.139.10] (helo=mail.cs.utexas.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19pFx3-0006OK-R0 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:31:45 -0400 Received: from kukicha.cs.utexas.edu (billj@kukicha.cs.utexas.edu [128.83.120.134]) by mail.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7JNVgJ7005214; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:31:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from billj@localhost) by kukicha.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7JNVg4R018983; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:31:42 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:31:42 -0500 (CDT) From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin In-Reply-To: <20030819090450.GD1504@always.joy.eth.net> Message-ID: References: <20030819090450.GD1504@always.joy.eth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org, "William L. Jarrold" Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: more about KM X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:36:20 -0000 On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > I didn't realize what you meant when you said about KM that: > "It is also frame based. This can cause problems." > > Ugh. > > The representation stuff and unification are cool. BUT, trying > to do any non-trival inferencing is a chore. Yes. This is par for the coarse for any KR system these days. Maybe in 10 years there will be lotsa patterns and modules that we can use. Porter et al have a paper called Knowledge Patterns. > > I mean, is it really true that I can only make prepositions > like (:triple f s v)? That's nuts. I'd be forced to move > half of the stuff into lisp and call back & forth. Maybe > that's what I'll end up with. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. There are several possible interps. One is that you have many non-binary predicates in your model. Is that what it is? It is very likely that you are on the "same page" regarding this, but just to be sure....The :triple thing is only necessary for certain stuff. Many rules can be written without it....but as I said, you already know that, right? Anyway, this reaction of yours argues in favor of CycL. I am much more familiar with Cyc than KM. Bill > > Do you have any experience with PowerLoom? I'm going to play > with it for a few days and see how it feels. No experience. Chances are pretty good that it sucks compared to CycL. What is its licensing? Bill > > -- > A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/aleader > From MAILER-DAEMON Fri Aug 22 20:39:11 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19qMPm-0006tF-F7 for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 20:37:58 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19qM1R-0002ad-LL for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 20:12:49 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19qLny-0005CT-RR for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:59:26 -0400 Received: from [199.232.41.8] (helo=mx20.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19qLk0-0003Hp-LK for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:54:48 -0400 Received: from [128.83.139.10] (helo=mail.cs.utexas.edu) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19qLjz-0007A0-10 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:54:47 -0400 Received: from isle-of-jura.cs.utexas.edu (billj@isle-of-jura.cs.utexas.edu [128.83.144.32]) by mail.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7MNTJCt028357; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:29:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from billj@localhost) by isle-of-jura.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7MNTJjS009465; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:29:19 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:29:19 -0500 (CDT) From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin In-Reply-To: <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> Message-ID: References: <20030729035533.GG619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Enid J Pritikin , aleader-dev@nongnu.org, "William L. Jarrold" Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: direction X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:37:47 -0000 On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > [I am aware of your limited time. I don't expect you to acknowledge > everything I wrote in this email. I am keeping track of any issues > which I feel are unresolved so I can feed them back to you later. > > For example, over the last few days I have made an effort to better > separate the science & philosophy portions of Aleader. Eventually > (not now!) I want to revisit whether the new organization hides > the philosophy sufficiently well.] > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:49:53PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > > I am finally attaching my comments on the tutorial. They way > > they are written is sort of halphharzed. I first only > > put new stuff by commenting it out with % and putting at > > WLJ at the start of it. Then I did a big comment blurb with > > WLJ. Might be best to respond to that via email discussion > > rather than attachment. Then I went back and changed a few > > lines of the original text without adding any WLJ indicators figuring > > you can use a diff like tool to find 'em easy. > > The best way is just to change stuff without putting in any %WLJ > marker. Diff (or emacs's emerge) works great. > > I see a lot of uncontroversial edits, such as: > <...> > > > Both "Master Yupas" are distinct from one another...One involves > > a set of collegial regard and the other is more like, yay, papa is back. > > The former emotions depicted are more adult in tone, the latter more > > childlike in tone. > > Agreed. > > In any classification scheme, some variation is unavoidable. > The challenge is to see how well we can minimize the variation. > > In this particular case, I don't have any idea how to do better. > Subjectively, I find both "Master Yupa"s similar enough. I do not > feel urgent motivation to further distinguish them. Hmm. Well, they felt different to me. Different enough to deserve different labels. Seems to me that this whole thing is like classifying snoflakes. There will be numerous categories at many different levels of granularity. At bottom, every snowflake is different. What may seem like a salient level of granularity to you might not seem that way to others. And my reaction to the two "Master Yupas" anecdotally supports this claim. But, the experiment we are talking about seems like a good way to test the claim that a given level of granularity works to such and thus a level. It might be worthwhile to throw in pairs that contain the identical piece of film. What also might be worthwhile is to find two films, one a remake of the other. How similar are corresonding scences? How does this similarity compare to scenes from the same category? (If you could toss this paragraph into the research proposal that would be great...even if you disagree with it, it is useful to stimulate ideas about what we might do or not do instead) > > > o I did not really get passed a thorough checkout of "celebrate > > presence", i.e. Item #31. However, I did a random leap and ended up > > looking at "You think I'm afraid of you big fuck?" from Goodwill > > Hunting. This appeared to be classified as admiration (there was a box > > checked next to "[+] admires [0]."). > > Perhaps it seems strange to classify this situation as "admires"? > "Admires" is actually a _general_ category. Sure. I agree that if a category is labeled "Admires" then (assuming lables kinda sorta reflect what the categories mean) it is a little more coarse than the rest of Aleader. It might be good to have a list of examples of categories that seem too coarse and a list that seems too fine. Ah, ding! Finally. There is the field of cluster analysis. Way cool stuff. I *think* it is called cluster analysis. Basically you take scads of similarity ratings involving pairs of items. Then a computer figures out how to cluster them nicely....So, we might even take pairs of random film segments and see what happens. This kind of thing *must* have been done in the literature. We must scour _Cognition and Emotion_ > > This situation also classifies to the _specific_ category > "haughty / arrogant" (which is a sub-type of admires). > I think we may have discussed this but haughty and arrogant does not seem like a sub type of admires unless admires includes self-admiration. Haughtiness and arrogance seem to arise in people who admire themselves. Yes, no, maybe? > One more comment: I have not put much effort into translating > Aleader's affective assessment in idiomatic, common-sense > English. This is one of the many reasons why I request people > to stop reading my explanation and start watching film clips. I might be wrong here, but I *think* I appreciate the difficulty in labeling certain categories. Words can be v v misleading. In Cyc there were like 27 versions of the "in" relation. There was a time when I thought they should be named in-7, in-3, in-14 etc so as to force people to grok the terms in their full richness and subtlty and prevent them from prejudging meaning based on some simple English label. Result: the relations were never used by other ontologists and they complained bitterly until I renamed them stuff like in-Lodged, in-ImmersedPartially, in-ContGeneric etc.. > > > okay, well, basically I think I get it. ... > > ... there is some similarity. Sure, there is a happy feeling > > felt by certain characters in all of those scenes. > > ... > > So far, the chief value of your system seems to me to be able to > > provide a vivid and reliable depictor of emotions. > > Great! Now I won't have to run around in circles trying to verbally > explain what you have now seen & quickly absorbed first-hand. > > If we publish an article, I guess we should "strongly recommend" > that readers try out the CD? Oh I guess. I'm just not into that aspect of it as much as you are. Keep after me and we'll see what happens. The computer lab that lends me computers is closed for a while so I'm not able to play with Aleader. > > For those readers who don't try the CD, how much of an attempt > should we make to verbally explain what is on the CD? Perhaps > such a description should go in an appendix or something? I personal growth people need to see it more than the researchers. But for them, you won't have much of a chance to market it other than in print.....I don't think we need to answer your question exactly right now. THe much much bigger task is to build something that people will use. Best prospect I think is to focus on elementary school kiddos, especially those with autism/asperger's needing social skills and empathy training. > > > Maybe, if you replace your categories with OCC categories and/or Roseman > > categories you will get more attention from the academic community. > > I certainly want to compare/constrast with OCC & Roseman. In fact, I > got a copy of Roseman96 today. Sorry it took so long. I am looking > forward to reading it. However, I am not willing to dump the Aleader > model. Perhaps I am stubborn or irrational about this, but I continue > to believe that Aleader offers a more precise affective model than any > other existing model. Obviously, this belief does not rest on being > well-read. It rests on a long inner struggle and deep introspection. > I will offer some comments on Roseman soon though, in any case. > > In your first email, you suggested that I narrow the scope of my > research. I agree that I am trying to do something "too big." > However, I don't see a problem with that. I don't have a deadline. > We can proceed in small, manageable steps. Be involved as much as > you want. I appreciate your feedback very much. Right. In Research World, I'm not against eventually ending up with something as complex as Aleader. But to get there we first need to scientifically validate principles such as "If you get what you want you feel happy. If you don't get what you want then you feel sad." Validating a model like that is one of the first 100 baby steps to take. > > > One important > > question is, is there more heterogenetiy between categories than within > > categories? One way you could test this is ask people to view pairs of > > scenes and rate their affective similarity on a scale of 1-5. > > That's a great idea! Why didn't I think of that? Here is an instance > where your broad awareness of the field of cognitive psychology really > helps me out. > > I have already done most of the work to automate this type of test. > I will get busy and make a few more preparatory changes to the software. > Perhaps within a week, we'll be ready (software-wise) to get started > testing human subjects. Cool. Howz that gone? > > > o It would be interesting to apply different types of text understanding > > and/or statistical NLP to the scripts you have provided. If it's > > inferences could be sync'd up to different film clips and its inferences > > compared to human's inferences watching (reading?) the same film > > (script), now we are getting something quite interesting. > > Specifically, by comparing affective judgements in each of these three > > conditions. > > That does sound very exciting. It also sounds like something that > requires big databases and more computing power than I have at > present. > I thought I answered this. I don't think it is that compute intensive. > On the other hand, I do want to collect these more ambitious research > ideas. Who knows, semi-automated emotional analysis of complete films > may be of practical value to Hollywood studios. > > Personally I am happy to begin with an investigation of the question > you raise above, "is there more heterogeneity between categories than > within categories?". The test will require little effort to > administer. Statistical analysis is straightforward. There is lots > of precedent in the published literature (can you suggest a > particularly good article which I can use as a model?). Alas, NO! We must search the literatute before really starting in earnest....Actually, there is a paper kinda like this...Ask me again when I am at home I can dig through my files and try to find it. > We could even > limit the scope of the test to the 10 easy categories in the "getting > started" guide (maybe, this choice has pros & cons). It should be > relatively easy. What do you think? The problem is that one could critique the study and say, Of course you found the inter category emotions to be more similar than the cross category ones. That's because you picked categories that were radically different. Maybe this is not a big problem. I should try to meet with my advisor and she what she says. > > A simple article like this may be a necessary pre-cursor to a big NLP & > inferencing project anyway. Isn't it? Probably. But it would be easy to see how accurate liwc was in rating a given section of the script. Do you have the scripts in free text form? We could feed 'em to liwc chunk by chucnk right away. Would the count of happy (or whatever category) words vary interestingly as a function of chunk? (Btw, how did you get the scripts?) > > > I am still quite unfamiliar with your theory. > > Even so, I want to decide a course of action. Unless you come up with > something better, I am going to plan my time according to the aim of > publishing an article addressing the question: "is there more > heterogeneity between categories than within categories?" Okay. But you run the risk of wasting your energy. There is a decent chance I'll change my mind after ruminating more, asking Diane (my adivosr), researching the literature. > > I guess I need to write a research proposal now? Perhaps a one page > outline giving an overview of what we have, what we want to do with > it, and what we resources we need? Good. You are more of a man of action than me. > > I hope you can guide me through the process and perhaps help with > corralling human subjects. I _may_ be able to find English speaking > human subjects here in Nashik too. Perhaps it would add something to > use human subjects from two different countries? I think we've emailed about this subject. > > I hope you find time to explore Aleader in a bit more depth. Here are > my predictions about what you will find: > > + The categories are more robust than you thought initially. > > + You will appreciate the elegance and computability of the model. > > + You will see how the model can be extended or scaled up. > > + Simultaneous with your growing appreciation of the model, you will > begin to feel that most people will need some training to go beyond > the ten easy categories. I think this is a rather sticky problem. > I look forward to hearing your opinion about it. Well, we shall see. Bill > > -- > .. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My! > From MAILER-DAEMON Fri Aug 22 21:17:38 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19qMx7-0006xS-Vx for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:12:25 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19qMAQ-0006xx-UV for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 20:22:06 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19qLn6-0004nn-ET for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:58:33 -0400 Received: from [199.232.41.8] (helo=mx20.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19qLk2-0003Hp-PM for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:54:50 -0400 Received: from [128.83.139.10] (helo=mail.cs.utexas.edu) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19qLju-0007A0-RV for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:54:42 -0400 Received: from isle-of-jura.cs.utexas.edu (billj@isle-of-jura.cs.utexas.edu [128.83.144.32]) by mail.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7MNloCt001358; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:47:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from billj@localhost) by isle-of-jura.cs.utexas.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7MNlo4d009683; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:47:50 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:47:50 -0500 (CDT) From: "William L. Jarrold" To: Joshua N Pritikin In-Reply-To: <20030811133649.GB1250@always.joy.eth.net> Message-ID: References: <20030729035533.GG619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> <20030807040344.GB1525@always.joy.eth.net> <20030811133649.GB1250@always.joy.eth.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org, "William L. Jarrold" Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: direction X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:12:24 -0000 On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 03:36:34PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote: > > > One more note: For easy of discussion I assume "emotion" = > > > "affective state".] <...> > I took a look at LIWC. It looks like a superficial approach to NLP. > I guess LIWC would easier than integrating with Erik Mueller's > ThoughtTreasure or KM. On the other hand, I tend to prefer the deeper > approach, even if it takes more effort. > > OK, maybe it's not impossible, even with my modest computing resources. > It sounds like a lot of work though. I feel like I have already done > too much work without any pay-off. I am eager to grab some low-hang > fruit. After a few bananas, I'm willing to re-consider all the > options. Agreed. There may be a very large low hanging fruit involving LIWC. I mentioned one such idea in an email I sent not long ago today. Maybe even ThoughtTreasure. > > > You might also be interested in the CASP and the DANVA. > > Both of these are instruments that neuropsychologist type people > > who I work with at UT use. And these instruments are used to > > detect impairments with social cue perception. > > Yah, I can definitely see applications for Aleader here. If we > published the right type of article and tweak the software a bit > then it should be an easy sell. I see that DANVA costs $250. > If we start some kind of mail-order business then I bet we can > get at least one order per month. ;-) Yes. More likely we'll have to go through an educational distributor. I'm finding that I have connections to a few. Whatever, I need to stop dreaming and start building and doing. > > > Inferring emotion from prosody is something much different than > > the logical cognitive models that my dissertation was about. But > > your system is capable of assessing someone's prosodic perception. > > But your formal system is miles away from modeling prosodic perception. > > The kind of formal system for that is more like a markov process, > > a neural network...something that handles non-digital, non-symbolic > > representations. > > Well .. my main interest is in empirically validating the Aleader > aspraisal model. Assessing prosodic perception does not really > interest me. On the other hand, all my source code is GPL'd so > anyone is welcome to work on it. Hmm, I thought you were interested in prosody. If you aren't, then I think you'd be happy with representing textual stories and teaching a computer to infer the affect. > > In an eariler email, you mentioned Clark Elliott. I guess I find his > research a little bit strange. According to my philosophical beliefs, > what is important is to teach people how to recognize the > meaning of emotion. Teaching computers how to express emotion > doesn't seem very interesting. I think John McCarthy would agree > with me. Why do you invoke McCarthy here? I haven't looked at Clark's stuff in a long while but since he was a student of Ortony's I'd think he'd be more interested in appraisal than expression of emotion. > > A question about attribution: I took some of your email and dropped > it into the Aleader manual, almost verbatim: "A given personality in a > given film clip may be depicting several different emotions at once." > Do you care about this? I don't mind adding your name somewhere. Let > me know if I should do something. How about this...If you could thank me in the acknowledgements....I really should stop this email back and forth and go to the latest manual and re-read it and see if I'd be comfortable with co-author....If you are about to this document to anyone, I might wanna be alerted to as to hop to and see if I want my name on it. > > [And now back to today's back & forth.] > > > not good for getting published. Much ink has been spilled on what > > is an emotion. We need to have a good definition. > > No doubt. If we need to discuss the definition of "emotion" then > let's discuss it. I say lets adopt the OCC definition or maybe it was defined in referential structure of affective lexicon and then make up our own term -- affective state. > > > Part of making a good definition is to say what our definition is NOT. > > Agreed. > > > The following > > blurb shows how Ortony et al have defined emotion. This is an excerpt > > from my master's thesis (well, technically it is from my prospectus) that > > was commented out from the final version... > > > > %The first step in this process is defining emotions as affectively > > %valenced construals of situations. However, they define emotion as > > %distinct subset of affect. (actually this is not from [OCC] but rather > > %from [Ortony, Clore and Foss 1987a]) The best examples of emotions are > > %those that a) refer to internal, mental conditions as opposed to > > %external or physical ones, b) are clear cases of states (I'm not exactly > > %sure what they mean by this), c) and have affect as opposed to behavior > > %or cognition as predominant focus. As these constraints are relaxed, > > %one gets non-emotions or poorer examples of emotions. Though the > > This is probably wrong, but I am tempted to write "a summary of > the Aleader appraisal instructions." Huh? Why could it be wrong to summarize something? I think it would be v helpful to summarize them. > It is tautological that > we are including all the emotions which can arise from any > situation which can provide answers to our appraisal questions. > Erm .. I'm loosing you here. > > One point which may be helpful is that Aleader emotions > happen "outside" in the sense that the emotion is a relation > between two people. I speculate that Damasio has targetted > his emotion research from the opposite angle, trying to > measure the _physiology_ of emotion (& maybe thinking). > I'm not very familiar with Damasio's work, so I'm just > guessing here. Hmm, you are defining emotion differently than OCC. I'm a little anxious about defining emotion as a "relation between two people." You'll have to say more. Enemy, blood brother and step-child are also relations between people but are not emotions...C'mon please, pretty please can we use the OCC defn of emotion? (-; > > > ...As I recall OCC has a nice blurb on how "abandoned" does not refer to > > an emotion. Our paper should say that although "abandoned" does not refer > > to an Ortony like emotion but it does refer to an affective state. > > Yah, that's a nice tie-in. I have taken note. And hopefully maybe shoved such a note into some Aleader related writing? > > > > > I don't see haughty as being a sub-case of admires, unless admires > > > > includes self-admiration? > > > > > > To be precise, the appraisal category is: > > > > > > "I am _expecting_ you to admire me." > > > (I=Will, you=Chuckie, spoken in a pushy tone of voice) > > > > OCC states that admiration, by definition, involves one person to feel > > good about something that another has/does. The emoter is focusing on > > the praiseworthiness of another's role in some situation. The emoter > > finds that the admired person is upholding some kind of standard. I find > > this to be a good coherent definition of the emotion (and the affective > > state) referred to by the word "admiration". > > Yes, that is exactly how Aleader defines the general category of > admiration. However, Aleader leaves the point-of-view unspecified. > It sounds like OCC style admiration is always from the admirer's > point-of-view. To contrast, Aleader considers the point-of-view > (the admirer or the admired) as a refinement of admiration. Huh? But the experience of the admirer or the admired are completely different! So they are completely different emotions being experienced. No? Hmm, on the outside chance...maybe this is a cultural difference in the way Americans vs Indians think about emotions (but I thought maybe you were American...whatever). Okay I have got to stop here. I will respond to the rest of this soon. Bill > > > As you state, the "You think I'm afraid of you big fuck" clip is about > > Will expecting Chuckie to admire him. I agree with that statement well > > enough for current purposes. However, I will add that the affective > > state depicted is *related to* admiration but it does not fit the OCC > > definition of admiration. Will is *expecting* Chuckie to admire him. > > Will is *not* focusing on the praiseworthiness of Chuckie's comportment > > in this situation. > > I think you meant: "_Chuckie_ is *not* focusing on the praiseworthiness > of _Will's_ comportment in the situation." (Will and Chuckie are > reversed?) > > > Expectations fit in via standards based emotions such > > as admiration and reproach. E.g. people are expected to hold up the > > standard of "exhibit good manners" or "don't lie" or "don't kill people." > > Back to the example at hand, Will is expecting Chuckie to admire him. > > Will is sitting there like, "come on you fuck, admire me!" and Chuckie is > > not complying with this expectation. In fact, I think Will is feeling the > > opposite of admiration. He is feeling reproach in this situation. > > Are you saying that Will's > > 1. comment is a reaction to his prior feeling of reproach > 2. comment is an expression of reproach > 3. he feel reproach after making his comment > > ? (Roughly, I'm asking you to clarify "phase" in Aleader terms.) > > > Will > > expects his friends to uphold the standard of admiring those who deserve > > to be admired. And Will believes that he is deserving of admiration. > > Chuckie is "just sitting there". So, Will perceives Chuckie's role > > as violating the standard/expectation of "Admire those who deserve to be." > > According to OCC, if someone focuses thought on a another's > > blameworthiness with respect to a given standard/expectation and these > > thoughts are "above threshold" (kind of a handwave for present purposes) > > THEN reproach is felt. > > > > Hmm, let me do a "parity check" here to make sure we are on sort of in > > sync.... > > Yah, sounds reasonable. I bet you'll pick [1] from the list above, > but maybe not ... > > > The original line from the film is "You think I'm afraid of you > > big fuck." [a] Does "you" refer to Chuckie or Will? Joshua, you > > basically stated that subtext of [a] was "I (Will) am _expecting_ > > you(Chuckie) to admire me." Correct? > > Correct. > > > Hmm, I used the word "parity check". Not sure if you have had the right > > courses/self study to know what I am referring. > > Yah, I know a little bit about digital circuit design. While in > junior college, I built a simple counter with wires, chips and > solder. It was fun. > > > What kinds of classes did you take at CMU? > > I finished two years of a four year software engineering & > math program. > > I left because the courses increasingly seemed irrelevant to > what I was really interested in. Somehow I am not very good > at doing things which don't interest me. > > > Any significant self-study beyond that? > > Yah, tons. That's one of the reasons I got bored at college. > I was forced to take courses like "How to program in C" while I > was working with a team to write a multi-user Star Trek game in > my spare time. ;-) > > Maybe I should have applied for a PhD program or something, > but it never entered my mind. > > > Now that I think of it, what computer languages do you know? > > My favorites are C and Perl. I also know Borne Shell, C++ (ugh), > Bison, Lex, PCCTS, Lisp/Scheme, Prolog, Pascal, SML, Haskell, > and a bunch of others which I temporarily forgotten. > > The question you should ask is: what computer languages do > you _not_ know? Well .. KM, except that I almost know it > now because I read the manuals. > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "funny cases". I don't think there > > are another other elements to be added to the above 3 element list. > > Good then. Maybe the list won't expand. > > > > Which reminds me ... I have tried to explain this next point > > > a few times. Tell me if you understand (or if you already > > > understood previously): > > > > Thanks for asking. Questions like this seem to be causing me to feel > > hopeful optimism about our working together. (-: > > In an attempt to increase your comfort level further, I would like > to point out that I have some experience doing team projects: > > http://search.cpan.org/author/JPRIT/ > > The "Event" module is the most popular. While I did most of the > coding, grep'ing the ChangeLog shows about 25 contributors to the > project. > > > So, to answer your question about your next point. I sort of understood > > it but not entirely. And I understand it slightly better having read > > the paragraph below. However, I still have some lack of understanding. > > See my questions below. > > Let's keep going until it's crystal clear. > > > This helps. If you haven't already, put the above paragraph in your > > writings near the beginning. > > Done. > > > However, you will need more. There are three big open issues > > here. There is: > > > > Issue 1: "What rules govern cognitive appraisal?" (I.e. for a given agent > > how can we predict the affective states experienced for a given set of > > perceptions). > > > > Issue 2: "What rules govern affective mindreading a.k.a. cognitive > > empathy?" > > > > Issue 3: "Are there answers to issues 1 and 2 that can be consciously or > > deliberately used by people for the purposes of personal growth." > > I'm not sure whether I understand the issue questions. I'll > give it a try though: > > Issue 1: I've tried to spell-out the rules in the Aleader manual > in the Classification chapter. Doing a KR model of the appraisal > process would probably help to make the written instruction more > precise. > > Issue 2: For Aleader, I think we need to flip this around: "Do > the rules which govern cognitive empathy apply to our own personal > cognitive appraisal process?" I have been assuming all along > that the answer is simply "yes". Am I naive? I'm not sure how > to discuss this issue, whose other opinion, compare, contrast?? > > Issue 3: I don't want to tackle this until I get some feedback > about whether I understand issues 1 & 2. > > > Please mention these issues your (our?) writings. You (me too!) > > hypothesize that pursuing issue 3 is worth trying. Nonetheless, it could > > turn out that the answers to Issues 1 and 2 are so complex, so > > non-intuitive that there's not much personal growth that can be obtained. > > > > Please mention something like the above (copy it in is fine with me for > > present purposes) to the relevant part of your (our) writings. > > OK .. it probably goes in the introduction somewhere. > > > > > My intuition tells me that you are into both the researchy and the > > > > personal growth aspects of this CD. However, my intuition also tells > > > > me that you have not yet developed separate strategies for these two > > > > aspects. > > > > > > Correct. > > > > Great. We have at least some resonance then. Bill's > > hopefullness/optimism potential just went up another notch. > > Cool. > > I just want to emphasize again that my ears are wide open. > Suggest how to make the project more scientific-ish and > I'll probably go for it. If I forget, remind me. > > (The only thing I don't want to do is literally _destroy_ the > writings I've done on philosophy and religion. I don't expect > you to suggest that though.) > > > > My main worry with putting the whole thing on a web site is that > > > I'll attract a cease & desist court-order for broadcasting > > > copywrited material (the films). > > > > Well, you don't *have* to use films that have big expensive lawyers > > behind them, right? I mean you can shoot your own. You can find films > > that actually *want* more distribution. There are plenty of well made > > films that are very emotionally evocative. Student films are a good > > example. > > I selected the films quite a while ago. At the time, I was > concerned about fine-tuning the appraisal model. I selected a > film for two reasons: > > + I felt like the emotional portrayals reflected reality. > > + I liked the film enough that was willing to watch it hundreds > or thousands of times. > > Unfortunately I didn't seriously consider re-distribution rights. > > 20/20 hindsight ... > > I am ready to analyze re-distributable films. Can you recommend > any? My downlink is 8kbytes per sec so I'm not going to be much > help in solving this problem. The films should be at least one > hour long. We'll analyze only the first 20 minutes. > > Once we get new films, it will take time to go through > the analysis. I estimate that 20 minutes of film takes me > about a week to analyze. I wonder if we can put together > an initial article using material only on the existing CD? > > I guess it depends how many human subjects we can corral from > our respective colleges. > > > > (Can you imagine my state of mind before I figured out how to make > > > a bootable CD? I had this cool project, but it was impossible to > > > show to anyone!) > > > > Are you saying that distribution via CD is legal but on the web is > > illegal? (If so I would feel at least slightly surprised if that were > > true). > > I have been acting according to the belief (correct or not) that > the chance I'll draw a lawsuit is proportional to how much noise > I make about giving away films. At this point, I'm just seeking > serious collaborators. If we use a web site to collect test > results for a research study then a lot more people are going to > notice what we're doing. > > > A nice thing about a conference is that the bar for participation can be > > lower. You can sometimes get by with just a proposal -- and get good > > feedback on how to improve it. Or you can get by with more preliminary > > data from a recently executed proposal. > > Sure, but I don't want to do a lot of expensive air-travel unless > it is _really_ going to be worth it. Round-trip USA-India tickets > are about $1200 per seat (minimum) plus VISA hassels. Europe is > somewhat cheaper, but not much. > > Contrast that with my extended family's yearly cost-of-living > of about $6000. Do the math. ;-) > > > > The other point is that, as an academic outsider, I suspect I > > > will learn a lot from the publication process. I bet my whole > > > presentation will improve tremendously just by immersing myself > > > in academic procedures and protocol. > > > > Yes. Btw, my advisor said that reviewers anonomously review stuff. Thus, > > to the extent that anonymity really can be preserved, it should not matter > > that you are not part of the academic regime. > > Yah, a research article seems like the way to go. > > > > Hrm, will a "human subjects review" also apply to any > > > Indian subjects? > > > > Ask the professor with whom you meet. > > > > By the way, these issues fall under "scientific research ethics." So, if > > you intelligently use that phrase in your language (e.g. with your > > professor) you will seem more like an insider, less like some whacko that > > the prof needs to be worried about. > > OK, I put it on my list. > > > > + Read my comments on Roseman96. I emailed them yesterday. If you > > > didn't receive them then let me know. I'll re-send. > > > > Eek. I have not read this yet. I believe I saw it in my mailbox. > > Here's another reminder. ;-) > > > I'm happy enough with our > > current modus operandi. The key is to focus on deliverable writings -- > > proposals, drafts. Many important nuggets are in the above email. > > Agreed. > > -- > .. Sensual .. Perceptual .. Cognitive .. Emotional .. Oh My! > From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Aug 23 03:08:55 2003 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.20) id 19qSPX-0003uB-Ee for mharc-aleader-dev@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2003 03:02:07 -0400 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19qSP7-0003HI-Dl for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2003 03:01:41 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19qSMd-0001I5-88 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2003 02:59:38 -0400 Received: from [199.232.41.8] (helo=mx20.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19qSLc-0000Qa-N6 for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2003 02:58:04 -0400 Received: from [208.210.125.56] (helo=gretel.pobox.com) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19qSKn-0001dw-5A for aleader-dev@nongnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2003 02:57:13 -0400 Received: from wink.pobox.com (wink.pobox.com[207.106.49.21]) by gretel.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6051988490E for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:32:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from texas.pobox.com (texas.pobox.com[64.49.223.111]) by wink.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6342EFECF; Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from always.joy.eth.net (unknown [61.11.23.248]) by texas.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D17E645356; Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:32:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by always.joy.eth.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:02:22 +0530 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:02:22 +0530 From: Joshua N Pritikin To: "William L. Jarrold" Message-ID: <20030823043222.GF616@always.joy.eth.net> References: <20030729051234.GH619@always.joy.eth.net> <20030729103255.GA629@always.joy.eth.net> <20030805102104.GA550@always.joy.eth.net> <20030807040344.GB1525@always.joy.eth.net> <20030811133649.GB1250@always.joy.eth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Cc: aleader-dev@nongnu.org Subject: [Aleader-dev] Re: direction X-BeenThere: aleader-dev@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 07:02:05 -0000 I am trying not to respond, but solving this simple misunderstanding could ease reading the rest of the email. On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:47:50PM -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > > > > > I don't see haughty as being a sub-case of admires, unless admires > > > > > includes self-admiration? > > > > > > > > To be precise, the appraisal category is: > > > > > > > > "I am _expecting_ you to admire me." > > > > (I=Will, you=Chuckie, spoken in a pushy tone of voice) > > > > > > OCC states that admiration, by definition, involves one person to feel > > > good about something that another has/does. The emoter is focusing on > > > the praiseworthiness of another's role in some situation. The emoter > > > finds that the admired person is upholding some kind of standard. I find > > > this to be a good coherent definition of the emotion (and the affective > > > state) referred to by the word "admiration". > > > > Yes, that is exactly how Aleader defines the general category of > > admiration. However, Aleader leaves the point-of-view unspecified. > > It sounds like OCC style admiration is always from the admirer's > > point-of-view. To contrast, Aleader considers the point-of-view > > (the admirer or the admired) as a refinement of admiration. > > Huh? But the experience of the admirer or the admired are completely > different! So they are completely different emotions being experienced. > No? I am only trying to give you a clue about how Aleader's affective states are organized. I am not asserting that the admirer and admired experience the same affective state -- obviously they don't. > Hmm, on the outside chance...maybe this is a cultural difference in the > way Americans vs Indians think about emotions (but I thought maybe you > were American...whatever). -- A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/aleader