Topic: | |
Posted by: | Ryan Nagy |
Date/Time: | 27/02/2003 02:28:33 |
Patrick wrote: 2) If we want to "sell" our pattern to other scientists (e.g. in psychology), backing up patterns we cannot prove (using accepted rules) with statistical evidence makes sense - it's a matter of building rapport. Patrick - I can relate to your sentiment. Statistical models are the norm in the social sciences and it is often difficult to sell our ideas without them. I believe that the key will be to train people in emergent process-based approaches like dynamic systems approaches (and/or NLP). I can see virtually no way for us to explicate patterns by doing analysis of aggregates - we lose too much valuable information. For instance, as a Feldenkrais practitioner, knowing the "average amount" that a person can rotate their hip is irrelevant information for me. I want to know "what can this person do, right now, in this context, and how can I help her move easier now and get what she wants from her life (i.e. generalize her new behaviors/ movements to other contexts)." In my psych research, I am interested in development of particular behaviors as they occur, in time and in relationship, in a dyad: mother-infant, practitioner-student (etc). If I were to quantify behaviors and average across dyads, I would lose the actual process. The rub, of course, is that sensory-based, process research is often denigrated by many social scientists, most who simply do not know how to think without their statistical tools. My sense is that psychologists (including nearly all of my professors and fellow grad students) don't know how to recognize and respond to pattern. Likewise, they don’t have a strategy to give meaning to a pattern. The larger framework for them (deep structure?) is (I think) a desire to find "the cause" of a behavior. I.e. Where is the "genetic program," "motor program," "cognitive structure," that produces behavior X? When researchers are trained to look for an "It" it's difficult to step back and see the pattern. If you want to begin to train yourself in how to scientifically capture the evolution of behavior through time I recommend; "Dynamic Patterns" by Scott Kelso and "A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action" by Esther Thelen and Linda Smith. Peace. Ryan |
Topic | Date Posted | Posted By |
NLP & statistics | 02/01/2003 10:42:12 | Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (jobEQ.com) |
Re:NLP & statistics | 02/01/2003 11:27:47 | Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (jobEQ.com) |
Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 04/01/2003 08:44:24 | Bruce |
Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 04/01/2003 11:23:38 | Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (jobEQ.com) |
Re:NLP & statistics | 04/01/2003 18:33:09 | Bruce |
Re:NLP & statistics | 05/01/2003 17:23:40 | John Grinder |
Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 06/01/2003 07:47:18 | Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (jobEQ.com) |
Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 17/01/2003 19:46:21 | John Grinder |
NLP & statistics | 18/01/2003 00:16:31 | suzyhomemaker |
Re:NLP & statistics | 18/01/2003 04:03:44 | John Grinder |
Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 18/01/2003 23:03:27 | Robert |
Re:NLP & statistics | 09/02/2003 12:10:24 | Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (jobEQ.com) |
27/02/2003 02:28:33 | Ryan Nagy | |
NLP/statistics/dynamic systems | 27/02/2003 02:33:32 | Ryan Nagy |
Re:NLP/statistics/dynamic systems | 03/03/2003 06:53:34 | Patrick E.C. Merlevede, MSc. (jobEQ.com) |
Re:Re:NLP/statistics/dynamic systems | 04/03/2003 17:45:19 | Ryan Nagy |
Re:Re:NLP/statistics/dynamic systems | 04/03/2003 22:09:54 | John Grinder |
A statistical model of elegance and diffusion | 21/01/2003 03:19:20 | Rob Manson |
Re:A statistical model of elegance and diffusion | 21/01/2003 04:16:48 | John Grinder |
Re:Re:A statistical model of elegance and diffusion | 21/01/2003 10:55:06 | Rob Manson |
Re:Re:Re:A statistical model of elegance and diffusion | 21/01/2003 17:22:38 | John Grinder |
The genetics analogy | 21/01/2003 11:54:19 | Rob Manson |
Re:The genetics analogy | 22/01/2003 04:27:46 | John Grinder |
Re:Re:The genetics analogy | 22/01/2003 05:35:59 | Rob Manson |
Re:The genetics analogy | 22/01/2003 04:27:48 | John Grinder |
Re:The genetics analogy | 22/01/2003 04:27:53 | John Grinder |
Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations | 22/01/2003 05:53:24 | nj |
Re:Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations | 22/01/2003 07:39:41 | Rob Manson |
Re:Re:Re:The genetics analogy. topic: Solutions to Puzzles/Recommendations | 22/01/2003 17:24:09 | John Grinder |
Re:Modelling vs Analysis | 22/01/2003 23:16:12 | Rob Manson |
The genetics analogy | 21/01/2003 11:55:16 | Rob Manson |
Re:NLP & statistics | 24/01/2003 06:49:17 | Mike |
Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 24/01/2003 16:39:35 | John Grinder |
Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 24/01/2003 17:25:03 | Mike |
Re:Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 24/01/2003 18:26:08 | John Grinder |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:NLP & statistics | 28/01/2003 20:04:54 | Mike |