[Heartlogic-dev] design (was Re: statistics)

[Joshua N Pritikin]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 01:17:25AM -0600, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > Are you confident that you can wave the magic wand and
> > do robust statistical inference of the highest scientific
> > standards?
> 
> Not confident but with a little elbow grease we can work it
> out....If we want to publish in an AI journal, they won't care.
> A psych journal will care.  If I re-read my diss (and hopefully
> even if I don't) it will come back to me...BUT, we can get
> good important results by departing from statistical stricture.
> In fact, it is very very likely we will have to.

Erm, well, OK.

I'll follow your lead.

> But, one of the nearest term mods I can see us wanting is the following:
> I am also interested in just having people write their own appraisals
> of situations.  E.g. we might have them select from n emotions and add in
> their own brief text explanation.

OK

> It would also be cool to just have users rate stuff.  E.g. "How
> interesting[common sensical, logical, etc] is the following
> assertion."...I'd like to compare ratings of interestingness (etc)
> as a funciton of a) was the assertion generated via Cyc or Thought
> Treasure or Open Mind....But this drifts away from open heart.

"the assertion generated" -- you mean the appraisal or something
more free-form?

Is it unreasonable to design Open Heart Logic (OHL) as a framework
for testing cognitive appraisal theories?  In other words, can
I insist on (1) scenerio cue (2) appraisal (3) believability
where any of these three items may be from a human or computer
generated?

> > Nov 25.  Let's see what I can do.
> 
> No guarantee that is what the date is.

Ultimately we want to gather input from the whole WWW.  I'm not
terribly worried about U of Texas.  Even so, it would be cool
to get something working soon.

-- 
A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/aleader