Your CIOS file request: Q-METHOD/06289061.514 hotline item

-
Received:  by CIOS Mailer; Sunday 28 Jun 2009 06:15:14
Date:         Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:13:47 -0400
From:         "BROWN, STEVEN" 
Subject: Re: Intelligence
To:           Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU
List-Help: ,              
List-Unsubscribe: 
List-Subscribe: 
List-Owner: 
List-Archive: 

--_000_C66CBA9B74ECsbrownkentedu_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


With apologies to the Q-Method list:  I now realize that my discussion with=
 Charles Stephenson about various aspects of quantum theory have been carri=
ed on the list.  A couple of the topics below may be of interest to Q metho=
dology.  I'll respond to the other matters off-list.


On 6/26/09 8:43 AM, "Charles Stephenson"  wrote:


Speaking as a non-expert, I would prefer not to describe Q and R as incomme=
nsurate (having no common measuring standard). Isn't it fair to say that th=
ey both use a common mathematical measurement, the unit, to describe differ=
ent aspects of reality?

I would not regard this as a fair statement.  It is true that Q and R, as w=
ith all sciences, have measuring units in a generic sense, but these are wh=
olly different.  In R, measurements take the form of inter-individual diffe=
rences in quantitative amount (e.g., the amount of intelligence from person=
 to person); in Q, measurements are in terms of intra-individual difference=
s in salience (Stephenson's quantsal: quantification of salience).  These a=
re not common measuring standards and refer to distinctly different realiti=
es, hence are incommensurate.


You would agree, Stephenson's insight was that there is no difference mathe=
matically between objective and subjective.

I don't think that this is quite the right insight.  There is no fundamenta=
l difference in the mathematics of factor analysis that is applied to objec=
tive scale scores (R methodology) and that which is applied to subjective Q=
-sort scores (Q methodology).  (Also, there is little apparent difference i=
n the mathematics used in quantum mechanics and in factor analysis, both R =
and Q.)  Stephenson's insight (and the basis of his disagreement with Cyril=
 Burt) concerned what it was that was to be measured: objective traits or s=
ubjective impressions?  As Stephenson pointed out, Q factors represent stat=
es (as in a state of mind).  R factors do not represent states; rather, var=
iables in states.  Charles Stephenson's position as I understand it - that =
"there is no difference mathematically between objective and subjective" - =
is in alignment with Burt and Cattell's reciprocity principle, which was op=
posed by William Stephenson's position of nonreciprocity.
___________________________________________
*  _____  ______  ____  __ __  ____  ___ _  *  Steven R. Brown
| |  ___||_    _||  _ ||  |  ||  _ ||   | | |  Political Science
| |___  |  |  |  |  _| |  |  ||  _| |     | |  Kent State University
| |_____|  |__|  |____| \___/ |____||_|___| |  (sbrown@kent.edu)
*___________________________________________*_________________________
Everything we do is an act of poetry or painting if we do it with mindfulne=
ss. (Buddhist saying)


--_000_C66CBA9B74ECsbrownkentedu_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








With apologies to the Q-Method list:  I now realize that my discussion=
 with Charles Stephenson about various aspects of quantum theory have been =
carried on the list.  A couple of the topics below may be of interest =
to Q methodology.  I’ll respond to the other matters off-list.




On 6/26/09 8:43 AM, "Charles Stephenson" <CWStephenson2008@AOL.COM> wrote:

 

 

Speaking as a non-expert, I would prefer not to describe Q and R as incomme=
nsurate (having no common measuring standard). Isn't it fair to say that th=
ey both use a common mathematical measurement, the unit, to describe differ=
ent aspects of reality? 



I would not regard this as a fair statement.  It is true th=
at Q and R, as with all sciences, have measuring units in a generic sense, =
but these are wholly different.  In R, measurements take the form of i=
nter-individual differences in quantitative amount (e.g., the amount of int=
elligence from person to person); in Q, measurements are in terms of intra-=
individual differences in salience (Stephenson’s quantsal: quantifica=
tion of salience).  These are not common measuring standards and refer=
 to distinctly different realities, hence are incommensurate.

 

 

You would agree, Stephenson's insight was that there is no difference mathe=
matically between objective and subjective. 



I don’t think that this is quite the right insight.  =
There is no fundamental difference in the mathematics of factor analysis th=
at is applied to objective scale scores (R methodology) and that which is a=
pplied to subjective Q-sort scores (Q methodology).  (Also, there is l=
ittle apparent difference in the mathematics used in quantum mechanics and =
in factor analysis, both R and Q.)  Stephenson’s insight (and th=
e basis of his disagreement with Cyril Burt) concerned what it was that was=
 to be measured: objective traits or subjective impressions?  As Steph=
enson pointed out, Q factors represent states (as in a state of mind). &nbs=
p;R factors do not represent states; rather, variables in states.  Cha=
rles Stephenson’s position as I understand it — that “the=
re is no difference mathematically between objective and subjective” =
— is in alignment with Burt and Cattell’s reciprocity principle=
, which was opposed by William Stephenson’s position of nonreciprocit=
y.

 ________________________________________=
___

*=A0 _____=A0 ______=A0 ____=A0 __ __=A0 ____=A0 ___ _=A0 *=A0 Steven R. Brown

| |=A0 ___||_=A0=A0=A0 _||=A0 _ ||=A0 |=
=A0 ||=A0 _ ||=A0=A0 | | |=A0 Political Science=


| |___=A0 |=A0 | =A0|=A0 | =A0_| |=A0 | =
=A0||=A0 _| |=A0=A0=A0=A0 | |=A0 Kent State Uni=
versity

| |_____|=A0 |__|=A0 |____| \___/ |____||=
_|___| |=A0=A0(sbro=
wn@kent.edu)

*________________________________________=
___*_________________________

Everything we do is an act of poetry =
or painting if we do it with mindfulness. (Buddhist saying)








--_000_C66CBA9B74ECsbrownkentedu_--