Hi Doug,
Sorry for the delay in responding - I finally have time to do so. Please
see below,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 9:08 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Polysemy and Subjectivity in Ontolgies -
theHDBIexample
Doug Foxvog wrote:
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-),
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.
True. But that is also true of most
human linguistics interactions. All human perception is subjective, and
all human action is subjective. Certainly language is subjective, and yet
we are able to communicate conceptually complex thoughts with all that
ambiguity going both ways in the conversations.
Medicine is almost completely based on
subjective interpretations of physical conditions, which can be mapped by means
of blood tests, etc, into syndromes that have similar issues. So the multidimensional
decision making process is performed by doctors every day. It is only
objective when certain measurements are taken that all doctors agree on - white
blood cell count, various protein titrations, other numerical measurements that
can conceivably be called objective (but only if you have the training of an MD
in dealing with these subjective classifications).
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.
Yes, that is an aspect of the four-pole
theories that the Myers-Briggs team did after studying Jung's EXTREMELY
subjective musings on personal drives. These are the E-I, S-N, T-F, J-P
poles of the measurement questionnaires they used.
The same thing is true of electricity
(positive and negative poles), gravity (helium goes up, rocks go down, in the
absence of other forces to stop them from doing what comes naturally), and many
other things that are talked about in NLP utterances. I don't see why you
are objecting to my assertion of objective measurements by observers for phenomenon
demonstrating subjective perceptions by experimental subjects.
There is no first-principles explanation
for the clusters - they have to be subjectively explained after being
objectively classified by the observers.
> 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.
Yes, they are classes based upon the classes defined
by the test makers.
Yes, and presumably the test makers wanted
the test takers to regurgitate approximately the same classes. How did
they know that the subjects would demonstrate clustering patterns? That
theory, though vague and subjective, still has very valuable implications. Most
business processes are just as subjective, or even more so, and just as in need
of organized analysis by the business principals.
> 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.
It seems that the clusters were selected in 2D
spaces.
For that paper, yes, 2D plots were published, but typically, pattern
recognition methods and algorithms are based on any number N of dimensions,
with Multi-D projections into 2D very common in the discipline.
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.
> Do we still agree, or do you think otherwise?
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.
It is about both polysemy of language used in the test, and about the
placement of decision surfaces in the multi-D space which the observers can
agree on as meaningful, and that is the point of this exercise. Most
communication, even when followed by precise measurement of supposedly
meaningful concepts, is about a variety of those meaningful concepts AS
PERCEIVED IN THE OBSERVERS' MINDS.
Not only does this seem very different, but polysemy
of word usage does not require polysemy of ontological terms.
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.
That describes the decision surfaces used
to wall off clusters from one another; such a surface distinguishes those in
the cluster from those outside the cluster, but has no more meaning than that
simple decision. The observers are the ones who, in their own subjective
ways, came to the conclusion that the clusters are meaningful in their
conversations.
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.
True, but not relevant to my own point of
showing how personal and subjective the meanings are to each observer.
-Rich
-- doug foxvog
> -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
>
> SUMMARY.
>
> 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
> HBDI
> 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.
>
> Simon
=============================================================
doug foxvog
doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org
"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.
=============================================================
_________________________________________________________________
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