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

[Joshua N Pritikin]

On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 18:26 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: 
> I created OperationJoshuaGoalBabyPilot put the above sentence at under
> overall goals.
> 
> Please improve what I written there.

It looks pretty good so far.  I added a brief page about clinical
relevance near the bottom of the page.  I hope you don't take it too
seriously.  It is little more than an outline.  A lot of stuff needs to
be filled in.

> >> It looks like a 3 X 3 matrix or table to me.  Not a taxonmy.
> >
> > Sure, this is just the root of the taxonomy.  Think of it this way -- my
> > taxonomy for individual goals (Goal, AntiGoal, No Goal) is trivial.
> > However, when we look at situations involving just two people, there is
> > a 3 x 3 matrix of possibilities.  As you mentioned a tree, depending on
> > which stories fit into which categories, we might add branches to some
> > of the goal pairs later when the data supports it.
> 
> So, I see how on one dimension you have:
> 
> a) Goal b) AntiGoal and c) NoGoal.

Yes, both the X & Y axis have the same labels.

> But what do you have an the other dimension:
> 
> a) Jack b) Jill and c) what?????

I think you are asking which agent corresponds to which axis?  Since the
"Browse Stories" screen is potentially a summary of many stories, the
assignment of agents to axis is accomplished by considering the role of
the agent in the appraisal.  All stories are treated consistently.

The lower chart on the "Story Stats" screen assigns agents to an axis in
the same consistent way so that's one way of knowing which agent
corresponds to which axis.

I can elaborate on the details of how stories are represented, but I
don't want write too much before I find out whether I'm addressing your
question or not.

> >>> What is not obvious is which stories will fill
> >>> in the rest of the boxes.  There are nine boxes and only two have
> >>> examples.
> >>
> >> What examples?  What are the 9 boxes. What does Goal/Goal = 0.21 mean?
> >
> > Goal/Goal = 0.21 means the most believable example of a story with a
> > Goal/Goal interpretation has a believability of 0.21 on a scale of
> > [-1,1].
> 
> What is a goal/goal interpretation of the Jack and Jill story?

Go to the Story Stats page and scroll down to the bottom.  I cut &
pasted from there:

Jack wants something about a pale of water for himself.
Jack believes that Jill wants something about a pale of water for
herself.

> >> What does Goal/No Goal = 0.36 mean?
> >
> > Similarly, the most believable example of a story with a Goal/No Goal
> > interpretation has a believability of 0.36 on a scale of [-1,1].
> 
> What is an example of a Goal/No Goal interpretation of the Jack and Jill 
> story?

Jack wants something about a pale of water for himself.
Jack believes that Jill feels indifferent about a pale of water for
herself.

> >> Just send me a three sentence blurb.
> >
> > To empirically induce a taxonomy of goal-pairs.  Does that help?
> 
> Maybe a little.

In the same way that OCC proposes a taxonomy of emotions, I aim to
assemble a taxonomy of goal pairs.  Moreover, the approach I am taking
is falsifiable in contrast with the OCC theorizing approach.  My null
hypothesis is that there won't be any recognizable pattern with respect
to the stories corresponding to a particular goal pair category.

> What is a goal pair?

A goal pair is the goal status of two agents towards the same goal topic
at a given moment in time.  Another way to think about it is that a
goal-pair is the same thing as "shared attention" or a "joint
attentional frame".

> What if there is one person in the story?  There are no goal pairs?

Correct.  That's how my research is related to human (vs primate)
emotion.  Primates cannot conceive of other agents as having goals.
Hence, a goal pair is the simplest truly human way of conceiving of
goals in a situation.

> What if there are three people in the story?  How many goal pairs are 
> there then?

It doesn't really matter because that kind of situation is far more
complex than I want to deal with.  Do any OCC emotions involve more than
two people?  (Probably not.)  Do any OCC emotions involve more than 3
people?  No.  Does that mean that 3 people do not experience uniquely
3-person-emotions?  I believe that such a question is beyond the scope
of OCC.  Most emotion researchers, myself included, are only looking at
1 or 2 people at a time.

On the other hand, the "Submit Story" screen allows participants to
create stories with lots of people.  I cope with this by picking pairs
of agents and treating them as if there are only two people involved.
As far as I can tell, this is the same approach employed by OCC, perhaps
implicitly.

OCC meaning The Cognitive Structure of Emotions by Ortony, Clore, and
COllins.

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

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