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

[William L. Jarrold]

This is the most important question of this email:

Joshua in your goal study, you believe that a goal pair corresponds to an 
emotion or at least some kinda affective state, is that correct?

E.g. a goal/goal state corresponds to what some might call a win/win.

These affective states are sort of like the OCC Concern for Other's 
states.  Is that right?  The difference between the OCC affective
states and your is twofold.  (1) there are 4 concern for other's
emotions in OCC but you have 9 possible goal-pair states.  (2) Ortony's
states simply involve a focusing on the outcomes of another agent.
Your states involve the simultaneous focusing in on of one's own goal
state plus some other persons goal state.  Is this correct?

More below...

On Thu, 19 May 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:

> 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.

I won't take it too seriuosly.  And I won't explain why I think you are 
dissing behaviorism and/or behavioral treatments inappropriately.

> > > > 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.

Well, I guess you did.  I think my aha above is much more important than
resolving the above for now.  Espec given that I wanted to be in bed
20 min ago.  If this is important it will rise to the top again.

> > > > > 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.

Okay I think I might be starting to get it.  I added the below to the 
wiki for JoshuaGoalBabyPilot.  I also made other changes that you will see
because you fixed the wiki to tell you when I change it.

By the way there is a bug -- when goto e.g. JoshuaGoalBabyPilot and make a 
change and then hit save, all is well.  But then when I go to hit edit 
again it gives me a URL not found kind of error.  So, I click on home and
I get the same kind of error.  So, then I point my browser to "home" via
my ohl wiki bookmark.  Then I can (and here is the workaround for the bug)
go back to JoshuaGoalBabyPilot and successfully edit.

The 9 possible Goal Pairs Are Listed Below.  Examples are given in 
selected cases.

(1) Goal/Goal

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

(2) Goal/NoGoal

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

(3) Goal/AntiGoal

(4) NoGoal/Goal

(5) NoGoal/NoGoal

(6) NoGoal/AntiGoal

(7) AntiGoal/Goal

(8) AntiGoal/NoGoal

(9) AntiGoal/AntiGoal


> > > > 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.

I am having trouble groking the last sentence.

The null hypothesis is psychology stats lingo for the hypothessis that 
must be rejected by data gathering.  If the null hypothesis (or no sig 
differences) is found to be rejectable, then our best interpresttaion is
the "original" hypothesis.  My friend Deepa, now in Bombay, would be able
to word/explain this better.

>

I have put many apsects of ths discussion below on the wiki.

Can you verify that what I have added to the wiki is correct?

> > 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.

Well, I think there are studies of primates conceiving of other agents
having goals.  (I am willing to bet money on the truth of the previous
sentence) If not, there soon will be.  Thanks to Decartes, we are
still under the belief that animals are stupider than they really are.

> > 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.)