Your CIOS file request: Q-METHOD/06289072.102 hotline item

-
Received:  by CIOS Mailer; Sunday 28 Jun 2009 07:21:02
Date:         Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:09:58 +0200
From:         Manuel Nunez 
Subject: Re: Intelligence
To:           Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU
List-Help: ,              
List-Unsubscribe: 
List-Subscribe: 
List-Owner: 
List-Archive: 

This is a multipart message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C9F7F1.C0A975C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Steven, don=B4t worry!. I found this discussion really =
instructive!.

Best regards.

MN

=20

=20

From: Q Methodology Network [mailto:Q-METHOD  at LISTSERV.KENT.EDU] On =
Behalf Of
BROWN, STEVEN
Sent: domingo, 28 de junio de 2009 12:14
To: Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU
Subject: Re: Intelligence

=20


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=92ll 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
incommensurate (having no common measuring standard). Isn't it fair to =
say
that they both use a common mathematical measurement, the unit, to =
describe
different aspects of reality?=20

I would not regard this as a fair statement.  It is true that 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 inter-individual
differences in quantitative amount (e.g., the amount of intelligence =
from
person to person); in Q, measurements are in terms of intra-individual
differences in salience (Stephenson=92s quantsal: quantification of =
salience).
These are not common measuring standards and refer to distinctly =
different
realities, hence are incommensurate.


=20
You would agree, Stephenson's insight was that there is no difference
mathematically between objective and subjective.=20

I don=92t think that this is quite the right insight.  There is no =
fundamental
difference in the mathematics of factor analysis that is applied to
objective scale scores (R methodology) and that which is applied to
subjective Q-sort scores (Q methodology).  (Also, there is little =
apparent
difference in the mathematics used in quantum mechanics and in factor
analysis, both R and Q.)  Stephenson=92s insight (and the basis of his
disagreement with Cyril Burt) concerned what it was that was to be =
measured:
objective traits or subjective impressions?  As Stephenson pointed out, =
Q
factors represent states (as in a state of mind).  R factors do not
represent states; rather, variables in states.  Charles Stephenson=92s
position as I understand it =97 that =93there is no difference =
mathematically
between objective and subjective=94 =97 is in alignment with Burt and =
Cattell=92s
reciprocity principle, which was opposed by William Stephenson=92s =
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
mindfulness. (Buddhist saying)


------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C9F7F1.C0A975C0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable















Dear Steven, don=B4t worry!. I found this discussion =
really instructive!.

Best regards.

MN

 

 





From: Q Methodology Network
[mailto:Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU] On Behalf Of BROWN, =
STEVEN

Sent: domingo, 28 de junio de 2009 12:14

To: Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU

Subject: Re: Intelligence





 



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
incommensurate (having no common measuring standard). Isn't it fair to =
say that
they both use a common mathematical measurement, the unit, to describe
different aspects of reality? 

I =
would not
regard this as a fair statement.  It is true that 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 inter-individual
differences in quantitative amount (e.g., the amount of intelligence =
from
person to person); in Q, measurements are in terms of intra-individual
differences in salience (Stephenson’s quantsal: quantification 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
mathematically 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 that is =
applied to
objective scale scores (R methodology) and that which is applied to =
subjective
Q-sort scores (Q methodology).  (Also, there is little apparent =
difference
in 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
subjective impressions?  As Stephenson pointed out, Q factors =
represent
states (as in a state of mind).  R factors do not represent states;
rather, variables 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 opposed 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 mindfulness. (Buddhist =
saying)







------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C9F7F1.C0A975C0--