# resting states

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/resting-states/14874>\
**Category:** CSG1994\
**Created:** [August 1, 1994, 3:13pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/resting-states/14874 "1994-08-01T15:13:28Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jeff\_Vancouver1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jeff\_Vancouver1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Jeff_Vancouver1)\
**Post date:** [August 1, 1994, 3:13pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/resting-states/14874/1 "1994-08-01T15:13:28Z")

</div>

[from Jeff Vancouver 940801.11:12]  
to Avery, Bill L. and Martin (numerous posts)

Thanks for the response. I got what I wanted. Bill L. your zero  
reference signal is simply a version of my second option (higher-order  
sends a generic reference signal). The exact nature will depend on the  
level/unit one is refering to. It this point I am interested in keeping  
it general.

Avery gave me a third possibility (P becomes R). Of course, there needs  
to be a mechanism that regulates that connection. But that idea that  
three possibilities exist works for me for now.

Still no response to my free will posts?

Paul George 940729 10:00

The issue of selection is complex (that is why we have a field devoted to  
it). Getting the job description is done via job analysis. A central  
problem you did not mention is that the jobs often change (as will be the  
case with interacting systems, I argue). But the issue of Type II error  
and compensating skills is basically one of averages and individuals. The  
individualist can always argue that someone will get messed over via these  
tests (for some will). The averagist will argue that, on average, more  
are helped than hurt (which is also true). The point I am trying to make  
is that selection will occur, thus some individuals will get messed over,  
the best we can do (at this point) is to try to minimize the number of  
people. Thus we continue to strive to make better instruments. To say we  
cannot help everyone so should not try to help anyone is morally  
irresponsibility. (I am not going to attempt to help that droning person  
because there is a chance I might not be able to save her and that she  
might save herself is I just let her be).

The irony of the polygraph situation is that I witness testimony (the only  
non-circumstantial evidence) is even more unreliable than a polygraph.  
The best answer to these dilemmas is to develop collabrating evidence.  
Each single piece of evidence is just more evidence for making the case.

The higher level issue of everyone using the same test and thus some never  
being selected is one that I worry about, particular since we have found  
how useful and global general cognitive tests are. So far, this has not  
been a problem supposedly, but I think a clever sociologist needs to look  
into it.

Later

Jeff