Your CIOS file request: Q-METHOD/06289191.141 hotline item

-
Received:  by CIOS Mailer; Sunday 28 Jun 2009 19:11:41
Date:         Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:10:22 -0400
From:         Charlie Mauldin 
Subject: Re: Intelligence
To:           Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU
List-Help: ,              
List-Unsubscribe: 
List-Subscribe: 
List-Owner: 
List-Archive: 

--_000_FDD85D45B2287048AEFFB18A3AE43DDC129BAC29C6VMBX112ihoste_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Steve and Charlie,

Thanks for including us in your discussion. We enjoyed it, and send greetin=
gs.

The methodology discussion is fun, yet the intelligence concourse is more i=
nteresting.

One strand requires a universal ruler of innate intelligence. It's funded w=
ith lonely realism: "We might as well face it: some people are just smarter=
 than others."

Another strand seems to require a multivariate definition. It's funded with=
 gregarious idealism: "We're all smart in different ways."  "All of us are =
smarter than any of us."

It will take a Q study to get the matter of intelligence under control.

Charles Mauldin
VP/Solutions
Media Marketing, Inc.


From: Q Methodology Network [mailto:Q-METHOD  at LISTSERV.KENT.EDU] On Behalf O=
f BROWN, STEVEN
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:14 AM
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 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_FDD85D45B2287048AEFFB18A3AE43DDC129BAC29C6VMBX112ihoste_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable















Steve
and Charlie, 

 

Thanks
for including us in your discussion. We enjoyed it, and send greetings. 

 

The
methodology discussion is fun, yet the intelligence concourse is more
interesting. 

 

One
strand requires a universal ruler of innate intelligence. It’s funded=
 with
lonely realism: “We might as well face it: some people are just smart=
er than
others.” 

 

Another
strand seems to require a multivariate definition. It’s funded with g=
regarious
idealism: “We’re all smart in different ways.”  R=
20;All of us are smarter than any
of us.” 

 

It
will take a Q study to get the matter of intelligence under control. <=
/o:p>

 



Charles Mauldin

VP/Solutions

Media Marketing, Inc.







 





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

Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:14 AM

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 wou=
ld 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 sal=
ience).
 These are not common measuring standards and refer to distinctly diff=
erent
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 f=
undamental
difference in the mathematics of factor analysis that is applied to objecti=
ve
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 Cy=
ril Burt)
concerned what it was that was to be measured: objective traits or subjecti=
ve
impressions?  As Stephenson pointed out, Q factors represent states (a=
s in
a state of mind).  R factors do not represent states; rather, variable=
s 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.

_________=
__________________________________

*  _____  ______  ____  __ __  ____  ___ _&nb=
sp;
*  Steven
R. Brown

| | 
___||_    _||  _ ||  |  ||  _ || &n=
bsp;
| | |  Political
Science

| |___&nb=
sp;
|  |  |  |  _| |  |  ||  _|
|     | |  Kent State University

| |_____|=
 
|__|  |____| \___/ |____||_|___| |  (sbrown@kent.edu)

*________=
___________________________________*_________________________

Everything we do is an act of poetr=
y or
painting if we do it with mindfulness. (Buddhist saying)<=
/p>







--_000_FDD85D45B2287048AEFFB18A3AE43DDC129BAC29C6VMBX112ihoste_--