4 ms·

Overall your typing proposal sounds like a good start. The one thing missing, however, is any method of quantification. To bring a natural phenomenon into a mat

Overall your typing proposal sounds like a good start. The one thing missing, however, is any method of quantification. To bring a natural phenomenon into a mathematical realm requires something of a "codec" translating between nature and number. This, of course, would be a very big topic in itself. Neurological reaction data could possibly be used in the calibration phase to determine for various individuals the relative strengths of each relationship event. On the other hand, there's the option of using purely subjective surveys to assess the individual's reaction. Further still, with sufficient event data, relative event strengths could be inferred without direct individual contact or interference. My observation on the topic of human social analysis has thus far been that most folks are relatively uncomfortable discussing human quantification, as if humans are somehow exempt from being measured. I sometimes wonder if the ego is afraid of being seen in the daylight.

meric 11y ago
Well, I think it's near impossible to quantify currently because all experiences are subjective. I think it's not too unsurprising many people are uncomfortable thinking about specific nuances of human social interaction, not many people are comfortable watching a doctor dissecting a human eye ball discussing how it works and measuring each part of it, either...
- insoluble 11y ago
  I agree that it's no easy task. I'm thinking maybe when real-time brain imaging (including EEG) improves sufficiently, the effects of social exchanges could be measured more directly without having to rely on surveys. Either this, or humans would need to be placed into a giant maze where all their interactions are recorded. Surveys can sometimes be somewhat informative if done correctly. I once ran a morality survey (on TolunaQuick) where I quantified categories of morality across socioeconomic statuses using a three-tier questionnaire. The approach was much like that employed by common personality tests, where each measurement is made from multiple questions essentially targeting the same topic. By having related questions on different tiers (levels of magnitude or intensity), the subjective information was somewhat quantifiable across individuals. Like with many systems, it would be recommended to begin with a simple scenario (one type of event, one variable being measured) and to build from there. Without having a method of quantification, the formulae for human interactions would remain as nothing more than abstract hypotheses. Hence, quantification is necessary for scientific analysis. On a related note, I believe that one of the most detrimental flaws in everyday human communication is that magnitudes are expressed using highly subjective, discrete categories. For example, someone might ask, "How much fun did you have?". The answer would generally be limited to a scale having just several steps such as "a little bit", "a fair amount", "quite a bit", or "a lot". It is unfortunate that humans are unable to give a more fluid answer that is somehow standardised, such as by saying "3.5 F worth of fun". Another deplorable example is when journalists take scientific findings and say something like "X was found to be significantly more likely to give you cancer than Y" while not giving any details as to the absolute or relative quantity of difference. For all we know, X increases the risk of cancer by 0.01% compared with Y; and the general public seems ignorant of the uselessness of the statistical term "significant" when not accompanied by the numbers whence it sprang. Common tongue is inherently deceptive, and many people have a bad habit of taking advantage of this ambiguity for propagandist purposes.
  - meric 11y ago
    Very good points. Better technology including the ability to record inputs on the nervous system as well will go a long way. It sounds like something that will take half a dozen decades, though. How do you overcome the issue where, say, if we're asking our survey participants, "How often do you feel insulted by a family member in a typical day?", participants who experience frequent emotional abuse from their family may not even realise what they're experiencing are insults? "It's not an insult because it's true" kind of thing.
    - insoluble 11y ago
      Indeed that's a tricky one. My guess is that the average person lacks sufficient self-awareness to be able to answer a question such as that, especially if there are strong insecurities or other fears. At the same time, I believe that many people could attain a better skill at answering such questions if they practised meditation more regularly. It seems that the nervous system pretty reliably adjusts its sensitivities to the recent norms, so maybe the answer to this predicament involves not only (a) asking participants such questions, but also (b) establishing for each person the current systemic bias. Similar to pain-threshold testing, perhaps the person could be exposed to social scenarios, such as in videos, while being monitored with an EEG or related device. The pre-screening done on the experiment participants in the 2001 film "The Experiment" could be seen as similar since it tests emotional reactions. Even persons from different worldly cultures and religions would presumably have different biases, so finding this bias for each individual would probably be very important if accurate analysis were sought. To give an analogy, asking people questions on feelings is like asking a multi-meter for a reading. The problem is that each person has a large set of calibration knobs, so the real-world measurements can not be known without first checking the knobs.

meric 11y ago

Well, I think it's near impossible to quantify currently because all experiences are subjective. I think it's not too unsurprising many people are uncomfortable thinking about specific nuances of human social interaction, not many people are comfortable watching a doctor dissecting a human eye ball discussing how it works and measuring each part of it, either...

insoluble 11y ago
I agree that it's no easy task. I'm thinking maybe when real-time brain imaging (including EEG) improves sufficiently, the effects of social exchanges could be measured more directly without having to rely on surveys. Either this, or humans would need to be placed into a giant maze where all their interactions are recorded. Surveys can sometimes be somewhat informative if done correctly. I once ran a morality survey (on TolunaQuick) where I quantified categories of morality across socioeconomic statuses using a three-tier questionnaire. The approach was much like that employed by common personality tests, where each measurement is made from multiple questions essentially targeting the same topic. By having related questions on different tiers (levels of magnitude or intensity), the subjective information was somewhat quantifiable across individuals. Like with many systems, it would be recommended to begin with a simple scenario (one type of event, one variable being measured) and to build from there. Without having a method of quantification, the formulae for human interactions would remain as nothing more than abstract hypotheses. Hence, quantification is necessary for scientific analysis. On a related note, I believe that one of the most detrimental flaws in everyday human communication is that magnitudes are expressed using highly subjective, discrete categories. For example, someone might ask, "How much fun did you have?". The answer would generally be limited to a scale having just several steps such as "a little bit", "a fair amount", "quite a bit", or "a lot". It is unfortunate that humans are unable to give a more fluid answer that is somehow standardised, such as by saying "3.5 F worth of fun". Another deplorable example is when journalists take scientific findings and say something like "X was found to be significantly more likely to give you cancer than Y" while not giving any details as to the absolute or relative quantity of difference. For all we know, X increases the risk of cancer by 0.01% compared with Y; and the general public seems ignorant of the uselessness of the statistical term "significant" when not accompanied by the numbers whence it sprang. Common tongue is inherently deceptive, and many people have a bad habit of taking advantage of this ambiguity for propagandist purposes.
- meric 11y ago
  Very good points. Better technology including the ability to record inputs on the nervous system as well will go a long way. It sounds like something that will take half a dozen decades, though. How do you overcome the issue where, say, if we're asking our survey participants, "How often do you feel insulted by a family member in a typical day?", participants who experience frequent emotional abuse from their family may not even realise what they're experiencing are insults? "It's not an insult because it's true" kind of thing.
  - insoluble 11y ago
    Indeed that's a tricky one. My guess is that the average person lacks sufficient self-awareness to be able to answer a question such as that, especially if there are strong insecurities or other fears. At the same time, I believe that many people could attain a better skill at answering such questions if they practised meditation more regularly. It seems that the nervous system pretty reliably adjusts its sensitivities to the recent norms, so maybe the answer to this predicament involves not only (a) asking participants such questions, but also (b) establishing for each person the current systemic bias. Similar to pain-threshold testing, perhaps the person could be exposed to social scenarios, such as in videos, while being monitored with an EEG or related device. The pre-screening done on the experiment participants in the 2001 film "The Experiment" could be seen as similar since it tests emotional reactions. Even persons from different worldly cultures and religions would presumably have different biases, so finding this bias for each individual would probably be very important if accurate analysis were sought. To give an analogy, asking people questions on feelings is like asking a multi-meter for a reading. The problem is that each person has a large set of calibration knobs, so the real-world measurements can not be known without first checking the knobs.