Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA14320 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 2 Jun 2000 19:57:31 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: frost.umd.edu: debivort owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:55:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "Lawrence H. de Bivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu> X-Sender: debivort@frost.umd.edu To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: RE: Jabbering ! In-Reply-To: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJKEHKEOAA.richard@brodietech.com> Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0006021447550.29909-100000@frost.umd.edu> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
It could raise a methodological problem (but one no greater than asking
anyone anything about themselves), but I think that in practice it
doesn't, or at least doesn't have to.
By 'in practice' I mean that there is a skill to eleiciting this kind of
information from someone. Done poorly, it can generate false responses, or
none at all. How would we know if it were done well? My test is simply
that the information I elicit enables me with accuracy to carry out an
intervention whose success is dependent on the accuracy of the
information. If the intervention is successful, the odds are great that
the information was, too. (The intervention's outcome has to be defined in
terms that are confirmable through sensory experience, i.e. measureable in
some way.) I think that people, approached effectively, are not adverse to
surfacing this kind of information about themselves, and do so with
integrity. If there are gaps, it is rarely because of deliberate
misleading by the person, but rather due to the ineffectiveness of the
elicitor.
I know this may not be as 'hard' a definition of methodology as would be
ideal, and certainly isn't necessarily transmittable to anyone who might
want to replicate the elciitation...skills count :-)
- Lawrence
On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Richard Brodie
wrote:
>Lawrence de Bivort wrote:
>
><<And one can find out just why a
>peerrson wears a tie by _asking_ him why, by asking what is the value
>behind the behavior.>>
>
>Doesn't this pose a methodological problem? How confident are you that the
>answer you get when you ask someone the reason for a behavior is an accurate
>one? In general I don't think people are aware of all the causality behind
>their behaviors.
>
>Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com
>http://www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm
>
>
>===============================================================
>This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
>Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
>For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
>see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
|---------------------------------------------|
| ESI |
| Evolutionary Services Institute |
| "Crafting opportunities for a better world" |
| 5504 Scioto Road, Bethesda, MD 20816, USA |
| (301) 320-3941 |
|---------------------------------------------|
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 02 2000 - 19:58:07 BST