/[heartlogic]/doc/freeform.txt
ViewVC logotype

Contents of /doc/freeform.txt

Parent Directory Parent Directory | Revision Log Revision Log


Revision 1.1 - (show annotations) (download)
Sun Jan 4 06:02:53 2004 UTC (20 years, 4 months ago) by jpritikin
Branch: MAIN
File MIME type: text/plain
initial version

1 Yo emacs, this document is -*-text-*-.
2
3 ORDERING THE CHAOS IN PARTICIPANT SUBMITTED APPRAISALS
4
5 The purpose of this design document is to give some structure to
6 free-form appraisals. We want to tease out the implicit structure and
7 parameterize it without accidentally creating obstacles to creative
8 and varied appraisals.
9
10 WLJ: I've often found that what seems obvious and true to me is not so
11 obvious and true to another. By the time I've slogged through the
12 whole thing with them, the original idea is often refined quite a bit.
13
14
15 *** CONTEXT ***
16
17 The representation of context is guided by Baron-Cohen's Theory of
18 Mind.
19
20 A good theory of mind would be able to generate believable affective
21 evaluations from any perspective. Perspective (e.g. whether it is
22 from Mommy's eyes, or Tracy's eyes, or the readers eyes) should be a
23 parameter that delineates the range of sentences that comprise the
24 items we use in our experiment. Perspective taking ability is a key
25 function of the TOMM and is also what is believed to be impaired in
26 Autistic Spectrum Disorders.
27
28 ** Associated with each cue is a list of participating intentional
29 agents. Anthropomorphic agents are OK for inclusion.
30
31 ** appraising-agent: Who is appraising the situation? The resulting
32 appraisal is the appraising-agent's opinion about or construal of the
33 situation cue.
34
35 Example:
36 Goal: Eric wants to go in the car.
37 Situation: Eric and his daddy are going on the train.
38 Question: How will his daddy feel when he goes on the train?
39
40 appraising-agent = his daddy
41
42 ** participating-agent: The other person (besides the
43 appraising-agent) who is involved in the situation. Initially we are
44 limiting appraisals to two people: the appraising-agent and the
45 participating-agent.
46
47 WLJ TODO, TERMINOLOGY CLARIFICATION: If we include the appraiser in
48 the participating-agents relation then how do we quickly refer to the
49 other non-appraiser participating-agent?
50
51 Example:
52 Goal: Eric wants to go in the car.
53 Situation: Eric and his daddy are going on the train.
54 Question: How will Eric feel when he goes on the train?
55
56 appraising-agent = Eric
57 participating-agent = Daddy
58
59 Two people is the minimum number of people needed for TOM
60 propositions. For our simple appraisal model, there are exactly two
61 participants for any given appraisal. (Yet, there can be more than
62 two participants per cue.) For any given appraisal, there is one
63 appraising-agent.
64
65 WLJ TODO: I want to parameterize one more facet of appraisal. Given
66 this cue / appraisal:
67
68 At bedtime daddy makes Toby some hot chocolate.
69 participatingAgents = Toby, daddy
70 appraiser = Toby
71
72 Which parameter distinguishes between:
73
74 How does Toby imagine Toby feels about receiving hot chocolate?
75 (or simply "How does Toby feel about receiving hot chocolate?")
76
77 How does Toby imagine his daddy feels about giving hot chocolate?
78
79 In other words, who is the appraiser trying to mindread? Can we call
80 this parameter "point of view" or "mindreadee" or do you have a better
81 idea?
82
83 ** Context Summary
84
85 + Each cue is associated with a list of participanting intentional
86 agents.
87
88 Each appraisal has:
89
90 + Two participants.
91
92 + One of the participants is the appraising-agent.
93
94 + The appraiser is trying to mindread either him/herself or the other
95 participant.
96
97
98 *** GOAL EVALUATION ***
99
100 Goal, AntiGoal, and NoGoal are *relationships* that agents have with
101 respect to certain states of affairs.
102
103 unfulfilled fulfilled
104 ----------- --------------
105 Goal happy
106 AntiGoal sad
107 NoGoal indifferent
108
109 G-type English sentence template
110 ----------- ----------------------------
111 Goal I want ...
112 AntiGoal I don't want ...
113 NoGoal I am indifferent about ...
114
115 ** Basic examples:
116
117 Goal exmaple: Eric wants to go on the train. Eric and his daddy are
118 going on the train.
119
120 AntiGoal Example: Billy doesn't want a diagonally cut
121 sandwich. (statement of anti-goal). Mommy gives Billy such a
122 sandwich. (emotion eliciting situation) Billy cries. (If an
123 AntiGoal is met and Billy is sufficiently bratty and inflexible then
124 he cries.)
125
126 The relation between an infant and "Wesley Clark wins Democratic
127 Nomination" is the NoGoal relation. (This is true bc infants
128 have no cognitive capacity for an understanding of politics.)
129
130 ** Long-term examples:
131
132 Most people have a long-term goal like: "I want to be successful in my
133 life." For a person P, the relationship between P and "P is
134 successful" is the Goal relation.
135
136 A no-goal example: "I have no grand plan for what I want to do with my
137 life."
138
139 There exist long term anti-goals that can be associated with a
140 suicidal outlook. One example of such a long term anti-goal is "Fred
141 has ``Fred lives a long life'' as an anti-goal."
142
143 There are also long term anti-goals that are the opposite of suicidal.
144 For example "Bob has ``Bob dies early''" as an anti-goal.
145
146 Another example of a long-term anti-goal is: "I don't want to pursue
147 the same career as my father."
148
149 Usually when I talk about goals, I am implicitly talking about
150 short-term goals. I usually assume "normal" or common-sense
151 long-term goals.
152
153 ** Attractiveness
154
155 > but for the
156 > sake of discussion we can assume an equivalence: it desirable to be
157 > appealing and undesirable to be unappealing.
158
159 Yes. Kind of puzzling that part of Ortony. But I suppose it what makes
160 it a powerful theory? It sorta kinda feels like Freudian theory in that
161 you can view somethign as just a cigar or as something that is more than a
162 cigar. I'm speaking loosely and metaphorically. In spite of the
163 reference to Freud, I do think there is something scientifically testable
164 in OCC.
165
166 TODO for Joshua: propose definition of attractiveness in terms of
167 goals. c/c with Ortony
168
169
170 ** KR Implementation
171
172 WLJ: I am interested in the slots that instances of Goal-Jarrold might
173 have. My KM model, offers some glimmers in this regard. Much much
174 more work needs to be done in this area. Tested working rules which
175 determine the degree to which a Goal-Jarrold or a Individual-Intention
176 has been met/violated/etc are essential drivers of this part of this
177 region of the ontology.
178
179
180 ** Personality
181
182 Adding "personality," that would be a fun and interesting direction to
183 take the model. Then some situations would be in the form of ...
184
185 {Tracy/Eric/Toby} wants a(n) {apple/banana/hot chocolate/ride in a car/
186 ride in a train}. (He/she) is a {good kid/shy kid/bratty
187 kid/firestarter}.
188
189 ...with a little creativity we can add some interesting
190 parameters to the overall model that do not overly tax
191 the KR abilities of our system yet do cause our scenarios
192 for people to rate to be more interesting.
193
194
195 *** AFFECTIVE STATES ***
196
197 There are particular affective states which are triggered when a
198 fulfilled Goal changes in type (from Goal to AntiGoal, etc).
199 Investigate this later.
200

savannah-hackers-public@gnu.org
ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.26