David Goldstein (2006.12.31.0737)
Rick (and listmates),
You still don't quite understand about Q Methodology. But you are
getting closer.
A 'factor A' person is defined by a particular sequence of items. A
'factor B' person by a different sequence of items.
The sequence applies to each person in a group. The different factors
are made up of people who have different sequences of items, even though
the sorting instruction is the same. (For example: Sort the items from
'most like you when driving to most unlike you when driving.')
The sequence is based on feeling/emotions, with strong feelings/emotions
being on each end of the continuum (sequence). Weak or no feelings are
in the middle of the continuum. By examining a 'factor A' person, one
might come up with hypotheses for what variables of experience are being
controlled.
Please note that I said this was only a beginning project. It is not
meant to replace the test for the controlled variable.
For the longest time, I have been interested in applying PCT to higher
level variables that are difficult to model quantitatively. The research
that Dick Robertson, Mike Merkel and I did on the self-image is an
example of this. Dick's suggestion to follow-up on this research may be
very worthwhile.
Where do hypotheses about controlled variables come from? Where did your
hypothesis about variables for a person 'catching a fly ball' come from?
Perhaps you reviewed the literature. This is like talking to people who
have experience with the topic. Or you talked to a person who told you
something interesting--like how sea captains know whether their ship is
going to collide with another ship on the horizon.
In MOL Therapy, one of the hardest things for a therapist to learn is to
stop being a problem solver, an advice or suggestion giver, or an
interpreter. One has to trust that the Reorganization System which has
been responsible for the person to change from a single fertilized egg
to an adult person knows how to solve new and unfamiliar problems. So
yes, I have learned to have confidence in the person I am 'guiding'.
Rick, you asked for suggestions about research projects. I did what you
asked and so did Bruce. You didn't like the suggestions. This is what
happens in therapy when the therapist makes suggestions or gives advice,
most of the time. It really is a waste of time for everyone concerned.
The best thing would have been if we could have had an MOL Therapy-type
discussion on the topic and I would have helped you move to higher
levels of perception within you. I am willing to do this on Sightspeed
or Skype with you if you are interested.
Best regards,
David
David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Rick Marken
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:41 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Suggested Projects for Class on PCT
[From Rick Marken (2006.12.30.1840)]
David Goldstein (2006.12.30.2032)
Rick,
You are not understanding the results of a Q-Methodology study
involving a group of people. The different factors represent different
groups of people. Each person is assigned to one group. The Q-sort
for each factor goes from statements which are most like the persons
in the group to statements which are most unlike the persons in
the group. By examining the rank order of items in each factor, one
might obtain a suggestion for what variables of driving experience a
person in a group was controlling. People in different factors would
have different rank orders of items and might be controlling for
different variables of experience.
You should really understand something before rejecting it.
I agree. But I don't think I un-understood it all that much;-) You say
a factor represents a group of people. That's a different notion of
factor than what I am familiar with but let's go with it. So there are
"factor A" people and "factor B" people and so on. You go on to say
that the "Q-sort for each factor goes from statements which are most
like the persons in the group to statements which are most unlike the
persons in the group". So this sounds like, for all "factor A" people,
there is an ordering of statements that are most like to least like
"factor A" people. And so on for "factor B" people, etc. So "keeping
your distance from the car in front" might be a statement most like
"factor A" people and "flashing you lights at slow drivers" might be a
statement least like "factor A" people. Then you say "By examining the
rank order of items in each factor, one might obtain a suggestion for
what variables of driving experience a person in a group was
controlling". This seems to mean that, if I'm a "factor A" person, then
I probably control for "keeping my distance from the car in front"
because that statement is highly ranked for "factor A" people.
This seems to me to be exactly what I thought it was, except that what
I call "trait" is what you call "factor". You are inferring what
variable(s) I control from a trait you think I have: the trait of being
a "factor A" person.
It seems to me like this approach is like going around Hogan's barn to
get people to say what they think they control for. Hogan's barn, in
this case, is the Q-sort procedure., which seems like an unnecessarily
complicated way to ask a person "what are your goals when you drive?"
It also seems to be unnecessarily invalid, since you are coming to
conclusions about individuals based on group membership (their being in
a particular "factor"). That is, you are concluding that a goal of
mine is "keeping my distance from the car in front" because I'm a
"factor A" person
And finally, even if everything about this procedure weren't as overly
complex and invalid as it looks, it doesn't seem to provide much more
than _hypotheses_ about the variables a person controls when driving.
Why should I put any weight on verbal descriptions of what a person
_thinks_ they control? If you asked a fielder what he's controlling
when he catches a fly ball I think the last thing you would hear is
"vertical optical velocity", which is one of the variables that
fielders almost certainly do control. If you asked George Bush what
he's controlling for with the "war on terror" I think the last thing
you would hear is "income for the military industrial complex", which I
would bet is at least one goal that has produced this tragic and costly
canard.
Asking people about what they are controlling for may be a good source
of hypotheses about controlled variables. But, ultimately, the only way
to determine what perceptions people are actually controlling is to use
some version of the test for controlled variables.
The statements that Bruce Nevin had in his email could result in some
other statements about what experiences people are controlling when
they are driving.
You and Bruce seem to put a lot more faith in what people say than I do.
Best
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU] On Behalf Of Rick Marken
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 8:04 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Suggested Projects for Class on PCT
[From Rick Marken (2006.12.30.1700)]
David Goldstein (2006.12.30.1004)
Rick,
If we were doing a Q-Methodology study, your statements might make it
into the Q-set. Namely,
"I usually keep a nice distance from the car in front, proportional
to speed: the faster I'm going, the farther I stay behind the person
in front. "
"When I am on surface streets and in a rush and I find myself behind
some slow moving clod, I will get as close behind as I can get and
...
honk and flash my lights."
I don't understand how you can say that:
"I hope to help students understand that how a person is categorized
on some dimension (such as their attitude regarding tailgating) has
no force on how they control (such as the variables involved in
driving)."
Actually, I said it in response to this from you:
Each student would Q-sort the items according to a condition of
instruction: Most like my experience of driving to Most unlike my
experience of driving. The Q-sorts would be correlated and factor
analyzed. Each factor represents a group of people who have similar
views on the expereince of driving. The Q-sort for each group could
be
studied to see what variables of expereince are suggested.
So even if my statements made it into the Q-set, the result of the
Q-sort, according to what you say here, would be a set of factors, on
each of which I would "stand" somewhere because of where my statements
were ranked. The factors are derived (as you note) from the
correlations between the Q-sorts for a group of people. So the factors
represent something like "traits". One of those factors might be
called "cautiousness" because statements like my first one above ("I
usually keep a nice distance...") load high on it. So you might
conclude from the factor analysis result that I have a high level of
"cautiousness". Another factor might be called "punitiveness" because
it loads high on questions like the second ("... honk and flash my
lights"). So I might also end up having a high level of
"punitiveness". So the result of the Q-sort will be that I have been
categorized as high in "punitiveness" and "cautiousness". It looks to
me like the Q-sort technique is (like all psychometric techniques) an
attempt to analyze people in terms of personality "traits" based on
the correlations between their responses to tests (like the Q-sort).
This is certainly fun to do but I, personally, don't care for it as an
approach to the scientific study of closed loop systems.
Best
Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400