Scientific Publications Brainstorming
Nov 26, 2017 13:24:57 GMT -5 by Auburn
mikesilb, teatime, and 2 more like this
Post by Auburn on Nov 26, 2017 13:24:57 GMT -5
blank - that's an interesting point.
i may be wrong here, but i don't see the vultologist-reliance problem being too terrible if the methodology can be consistently replicated so that anyone can be trained to 'be a vultologist' in exactly the same way. for example, im sure there are objective ways to quantify lip-reading, or sign language as you mentioned. however, these are skills that take talent and mastery. so there is some degree of 'competence' involved here. not everyone who tries their hand at lip reading will get it immediately, and there are subtleties to it. but just because there's subtlety to a practice (that's not obvious to a complete newcomer) doesn't mean it's not a real practice with traceable logic and a definitive learning path. in other words, visual reading would have to be made clockwork.
I think... we can get past this hurdle and use vultologists for patient analyses (as opposed to software, which is the only other scientifically airtight avenue i see) if we can 100% standardize the problem of 'measurement'. ideally, using the ctvc 1.0 webtool (or future versions) vultologists should be able to read the same sample/patient and come up with the same type each time. So consensus should be in the high 90% down to specific type. the percentages of each function may vary slightly, but the typing should come out the same.
Secondly, the methodology the vultologists are using to come up with these consensus should be very well delineated.
So things like warm vs snippy shoulder shrug should be very technical terms with checkable measurements, rather than qualia-dependent. but there is the problem of 'borderline' or ambiguous signals and i think that too can be addressed. for example:
J Angular Motions
- -> Je Gestigulation
- - - - > Je shoulder shrug
- - - - - - > Fe (warm) shoulder shrug
- - - - - - or
- - - - - - > Te (snippy) shoulder shrug
^ i see these two signals as being embedded into a larger panorama.
warm or snippy shoulder shrugs are variants of the Je shoulder shrug, which itself is a subset of Je gesticulation, which is part of J's angular motions.
in order to properly represent the ambiguity, lets suppose we made this a spectrum instead:
^ We could define "warm" as a acceleration/deceleration pattern (swelling) and snippy also as an acceleration/deceleration pattern (plateau).
And if the pattern is clearly one or the other, we call it by the specific signal, or otherwise we leave it as just "Je Shoulder Shrug"
That way, it should be pretty consistent between readers. And we can measure how consistent vultologist reads are to each other via blind tests.
What do you guys think? This is just one idea that came to me, but at the very least I think it would solve the problem of 'subjective interpretation' or 'measurement'. There is still the problem of whether or not the signals being looked for are 'valid indicators of psychology' but at the very least we can say that... insofar as we are defining the signal, the signal is there. What it means is another debate.
i may be wrong here, but i don't see the vultologist-reliance problem being too terrible if the methodology can be consistently replicated so that anyone can be trained to 'be a vultologist' in exactly the same way. for example, im sure there are objective ways to quantify lip-reading, or sign language as you mentioned. however, these are skills that take talent and mastery. so there is some degree of 'competence' involved here. not everyone who tries their hand at lip reading will get it immediately, and there are subtleties to it. but just because there's subtlety to a practice (that's not obvious to a complete newcomer) doesn't mean it's not a real practice with traceable logic and a definitive learning path. in other words, visual reading would have to be made clockwork.
I think... we can get past this hurdle and use vultologists for patient analyses (as opposed to software, which is the only other scientifically airtight avenue i see) if we can 100% standardize the problem of 'measurement'. ideally, using the ctvc 1.0 webtool (or future versions) vultologists should be able to read the same sample/patient and come up with the same type each time. So consensus should be in the high 90% down to specific type. the percentages of each function may vary slightly, but the typing should come out the same.
Secondly, the methodology the vultologists are using to come up with these consensus should be very well delineated.
So things like warm vs snippy shoulder shrug should be very technical terms with checkable measurements, rather than qualia-dependent. but there is the problem of 'borderline' or ambiguous signals and i think that too can be addressed. for example:
J Angular Motions
- -> Je Gestigulation
- - - - > Je shoulder shrug
- - - - - - > Fe (warm) shoulder shrug
- - - - - - or
- - - - - - > Te (snippy) shoulder shrug
^ i see these two signals as being embedded into a larger panorama.
warm or snippy shoulder shrugs are variants of the Je shoulder shrug, which itself is a subset of Je gesticulation, which is part of J's angular motions.
in order to properly represent the ambiguity, lets suppose we made this a spectrum instead:
^ We could define "warm" as a acceleration/deceleration pattern (swelling) and snippy also as an acceleration/deceleration pattern (plateau).
And if the pattern is clearly one or the other, we call it by the specific signal, or otherwise we leave it as just "Je Shoulder Shrug"
That way, it should be pretty consistent between readers. And we can measure how consistent vultologist reads are to each other via blind tests.
What do you guys think? This is just one idea that came to me, but at the very least I think it would solve the problem of 'subjective interpretation' or 'measurement'. There is still the problem of whether or not the signals being looked for are 'valid indicators of psychology' but at the very least we can say that... insofar as we are defining the signal, the signal is there. What it means is another debate.
As a bonus, doing it this way we can notice whether or not people's signals follow a two-hump or a bell-curve pattern:
^ The hope would be that most samples display either snippy or warm gesticulations. But we can see just what this percentage is, in a broad-scale survey.
^ The hope would be that most samples display either snippy or warm gesticulations. But we can see just what this percentage is, in a broad-scale survey.