Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA14602 (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 20:35:44 +0100 Message-ID: <3937C5C3.F6EAA23B@mediaone.net> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 15:33:39 +0100 From: Chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Jabbering ! References: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0006021447550.29909-100000@frost.umd.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
"Lawrence H. de Bivort" wrote:
> 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 - I know what you are talking about -- I have been interviewing for a
few decades in my own and other cultures. I think you at least underestimate
self-deception, which, by the way, includes the interviewer's own self-deception.
But then, perhaps I don't know what you mean by "intervention" - an example might
help.
A counter example: I was interested in the changes in oral sex usage in the last
15 years. Everyone I asked in their 20s said that they practiced a lot more oral
sex because it is a form of AIDS protection. I pointed out to them, however, that
condoms would have done just fine - which they agreed to - and realized that they
were wrong in their reasoning.
That's a simple example of what I mean. In this example, I happen to know the
external fact, that AIDS can be prevented with condom use, so it was easy. But
there are many situations where we don't know which facts are relevant or simply
don't know the facts that would contradict what seems like a perfectly credible
explanation.
Or try, for example, to get an explanation from a husband who after twenty years
says he is bored with his wife and wants a divorce. Whole theories have been
built around the boredom factor as if it were the real explanation. Then you look
at the sociobiology of it and, for example, how most successful men will marry
way down in age and you know that the boredom explanation, although universally
accepted, isn't an adequate answer.
>
> - 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 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 - 20:36:29 BST