[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Polysemy and Subjectivity in Ontolgies - theHDBIexam

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 00:07:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <49656.>
On Sat, November 6, 2010 16:22, Rich Cooper said:
> ...
> I'm focusing on the METHOD of starting with a set of data points based on
> a theory (-good, bad, indifferent theory ok-),    (01)

Note that the data points are based on subjective classification of each
of the answers for each of the questions.  This data set is not based on
one dimension for each question, but on these subjective classifications,
which may have been refined during analysis of the results.    (02)

The test designers defined what they deemed to be opposite attributes,
such that if one was scored high for one attribute, they scored low for
an opposite attribute and vice versa.  This made it hard for test takers
to score high on two opposite attributes.    (03)

> and CLASSIFYing based on how
> the set of points clusters in the multidimensional volume of said data
> points.  Each said cluster I can interpret as a CLASS in the metalanguage
> of sets.    (04)

Yes, they are classes based upon the classes defined by the test makers.    (05)

> So regardless of whether the theory fits other tests, choosing clusters of
> points in a multi-D volume is equivalent to CLASSIFYing subclasses of the
> set of all points - the Universe.    (06)

It seems that the clusters were selected in 2D spaces.  Yes, defining
clusters either according to some rule, or totally arbitrarily results
in classifying the elements of the cluster as members of that cluster.
If a rule is defined specifying that any test that meets the rule is
a member of the class, then it does define a subclass of the set of
tests, which itself is a subclass of the universal set.    (07)

> Do we still agree, or do you think otherwise?    (08)

I initially thought this discussion was about the automatic
of new classes.  Now it is being discussed as an example of polysemy
of adjectives used by the sample subjects.  Not only does this seem
very different, but polysemy of word usage does not require polysemy of
ontological terms.    (09)

In fact, if a cluster is defined by a set of rules applied to test
result, then the cluster meanings are monosemous:  those tests which
match the rule set are in the cluster, those which do not match are not.    (010)

There can certainly be different theories as to the meaning of the
clusters or what someone's test matching one of the clusters implies
about that person, but that is quite a different matter than the
monosemy of the defined clusters -- or of words used to name or
describe the clusters.    (011)

-- doug foxvog    (012)

> -Rich
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>   _____
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Polysemy and Subjectivity in Ontolgies -
> theHDBIexample
> I would caution against placing too much reliance on studies based on this
> instrument.
> See e.g.   "Review of the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument [Revised]"
> by
> GABRIELE van LINGEN, In  Plake, B. S., & Impara, J. C. (Eds.). (2001).
> Fourteenth Mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of
> Mental Measurements.
> <http://buros.unl.edu/buros/jsp/reviews.jsp?item=07001170>
> http://buros.unl.edu/buros/jsp/reviews.jsp?item=07001170
> The HBDI, although reportedly receiving a uniformly positive response from
> participants of Herrmann's management training workshops, cannot make
> claims
> for meeting test standards that would recommend it to the public domain.
> Appropriate reliability and validity studies are not available. The
> instrument's format itself would appear to present problems for
> establishing
> the former, whereas the variety of claimed purposes and constructs would
> present difficulties for demonstrating the latter. Despite decades of
> research, there is only minimal credible evidence that the HBDI results in
> scores that are temporally stable and that the scores relate to meaningful
> nontest behavior. Otherinstruments, with established psychometric
> properties, are better suited for the individual applications that the
> claims. For instance, the Myers-Briggs Type indicator is a better
> instrument
> for assessing more general personality type or style. For career or
> occupational decision-making, the Hogan Personality Inventory (Hogan &
> Hogan, 1995) or the System of Interactive Guidance Information (SIGI-Plus;
> Katz, 1993), updated for adults, are better suited. Cognitive style is
> perhaps best assessed by the more established perceptual tasks such as the
> Embedded Figures Tests (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin & Karp, 1971) or by
> exploring
> more complex processes, such as Sternberg's thinking styles (1994).
> [...]
> References:
> Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and
> employment decisions. American Psychologist, 51(5), 469-477.
> Katz, M. R. (1993). Computer-assisted career decision making: The guide in
> the machine. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
> Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Thinking styles: Theory and assessment at the
> interface between personality and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & P.
> Ruzgis (Eds.), Intelligence and Personality. New York: Cambridge
> University
> Press.
> Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). A manual
> for
> the Embedded Figures Tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.    (013)

> Simon    (014)

doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org    (015)

"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================    (016)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (017)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>