RE: [Heartlogic-dev] rumination prototype

[William L. Jarrold]

On Mon, 9 May 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:

> On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 14:03 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> > I also agree with Josh's basic reactions.  I noticed a few typo
> > levels things and a few places things could look cleaner.  I doubt
> > I have time to go into that right now, but stay tuned.
>
> Here's the list I used:
>
> Jesus loves his father because Jesus is God's son.

Yes.  Technically this might be better put as...

Jesus loves his father. [q]

...and then later, they can click on this and see why.  I.e. they would 
see the premises which were:

Sons love their fathers. [p1]
Jesus is God's son. [p2]

Actually for deductions (like the above, and like "Vienna is wet.") we 
would want two conditions:

1) the believability of the conclusion alone (e.g. the participant would 
see q alone).

2) the believabilty of the conclusion in the context of the premises (e.g. 
the participant would we "q because p1 and p2".)

> Vienna is wet.

Slightly better to say...

"The city of Vienna Austria is wet."

> Rivers are a kind of water.
> If water touches x then x is wet.
> The Danube is a river.

Slightly better to say...

"The river Danube is a river."

...because this is prolly the way an AI (e.g. Cyc) would generate it.

> The Danube runs through Vienna.

Slightly better to say

"The river Danube runs through the City of Vienna Austria."

> If a river runs through a region is touches that region.
> Hillary Clinton feels zero dislike for Bill Clinton.
> Hillary Clinton is married to Bill Clinton.
> Spouses love each other.
> Love is the opposite of contempt

Slightly better to say

Love and contempt are opposite emotions.

> if you feel emotion x and y is the opposite emotion of x then you feel
> zero amount of y.

Here might be better wording the normal people might be more likely to
understand...

Suppose a person is experiencing some emotion, call it EMOTION-X.

Also, suppose that the opposite emotion of EMOTION-X is
OPPOSITE-EMOTION,

It follows from the above that they are experiencing zero amount of
OPPOSITE-EMOTION.

Actually how we word the rule could even be a variable...that is
probably somethign for later.

> > ..One wuick
> > reaction is it would be nice if there were a clear line or some
> > graphical and/or textual element that made clear the boundary between
> > "what you already did and the next thing we want you to rate."
>
> Hrm, a thick line seemed too heavy so I placed seven "birsd" ~.~ as a
> divider.  Maybe the birds are not heavy enough.  Suggestions?

Sorry, I dunno diddly about such web design issues.

Maybe do the separation with two tables?

<....>

> > I think we should have half of the items be reversed items too.
>
> Reversed means adding "It is not true that ..." ?

Maybe.  We should maybe try it several ways.  The advantage of "It is
not true that" is that it is easy to compute the reversed version
(simply pre-pend a "It is not true that..").  For these pilot items, 
I kind of prefer painstakingly crafted reversals.  See below...

Item 1 unreversed:

Jesus loves his father because:
(a) Sons love their fathers. 
and
(b) Jesus is God's son.

Item 1 reversed:

Jesus loves his father not because
(a) Sons love their fathers. 
nor
(b) Jesus is God's son.

Item 2 unreversed:

Jesus loves his father.

Item 2 unreversed:

Jesus does not love his father.

Jesus loves his father nnot because
(a) Sons love their fathers. 
nor
(b) Jesus is God's son.

Item 3: unreversed

The City of Vienna, Austria is wet.

Item 3: reversed

The City of Vienna, Austria is not wet.

..Okay, I'm pooped gotta do the rest later.

Bill