[Heartlogic-dev] Re: do we need to keep 'em coming?

[Joshua N Pritikin]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 12:56:07AM -0600, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > What is it about a submitted story that is rate'able or interactive?
> 
> E.g. the following (from recent real life, names have been changed to
> protect the innocent)....

I'm still a little bit uncertain.  Let's see if I got this right -

Here is the cue:

> Jean, Kathy, Rachel and Bob were hanging out.  Jean had recently had a
> sex change.  Jean, Kathy and Bob had known each other for a while.  In
> fact, they knew each other from before Jean's sex change.  Shortly after
> Jean and Rachel were introduced, Kathy said something to Rachel clearly
> implying that Jean had recently had a sex change.

Here is the affect:

> Jean was offended.

Since the affect is subject to experimental ablation,
we limit the affects to one of happy, indifferent, or sad.
Correct?  (You seem to imply this later in your message. I'm
just double-checking.)

Here is the justification:

> Why?  It would be similar to a case like if Jean had recently had breast
> augmentation surgury.  She would not want Kathy to blurt out a private
> sort potentially embarrassing fact....Kathy should have had the social
> common sense, the ability to mind read that Jean would be offended
> by Kathy's revealing Jean's sex change.

OK.

And we want to allow people to attach alternate appraisals
to the same cue, correct?

For example, "happy" because "Jean is a sex-change activist.
She likes to make sure everyone knows about her sex-change
when they first meet her.  She is a leading political
advocate of sex-change legislature."

Of course I am mixing up the cue & appraisal, but that
is a confound we are likely to see anyway.

OK -- I am ready to code this.  Just confirm that my
understanding (above) corresponds to yours.

One more question - User submitted cue/appraisals will be
segregated from KR derived cue/appraisals, correct?
Or do you want to mix everything together somehow?

> Now, what is interactive?  Well, I mean interactive only in a very broad
> sense.  Interactive in the sense that the survey takers will have a chance
> to chime in about the type of survey items that they think others should
> be answering.  If surver takers are able to have more of a voice, they
> will feel more involved, more passionate about it and will answer
> more survey queries.  That is what I mean by interactive.
>
> Does that make sense?

Yah, I think so.

And eventually we can do a KR model to achieve simulational
adequacy, with this material as a regression test or something.

And there might be clinical applications, as you mentioned -- cool.

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