# The Test: objectivity?

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/the-test-objectivity/11411>\
**Category:** CSG1993\
**Created:** [April 14, 1993, 10:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/the-test-objectivity/11411 "1993-04-14T22:46:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![William\_T\_Powers2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@William\_T\_Powers2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/William_T_Powers2)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 1993, 10:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/the-test-objectivity/11411/1 "1993-04-14T22:46:14Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (930414.1430 MDT)]

Bill Silvert (930414) --

Thanks, Bill. From now on I will provide a file according to your  
specs (including observing upper and lower case).

> **···**
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------  
> Greg Williams (930413-2) --
> 
> > My point (same as when I challenged Bill) is that The Test is  
> > the OBJECTIVE way to determine motivation, but it is not always  
> > easy to apply or without problems.
> 
> The Test, like all other methods for discovering things about  
> systems, is based on subjective interpretations and impressions.  
> If you're looking for an OBJECTIVE test, you are doomed to  
> disappointment. Objective tests conduct and interpret themselves.  
> No human being will ever know their outcome.
> 
> What \_do\_ we require of tests in order to accept them as yielding  
> scientific data?
> 
> First, we expect them to be done according to a communicable  
> principle in which all the criteria and methods are publicly  
> known, so in principle any person could apply the test in the  
> same way.
> 
> Second, we expect the data produced during the test to be  
> observable by anyone.
> 
> Third, we expect there to be a consensus on what the data were  
> and how they are to be interpreted. That is, anyone "versed in  
> the art" should be able to derive from a record of the test and  
> its results the same description of what happened.
> 
> Fourth, we expect that the reasoning by which the test is said to  
> support or disprove some hypothesis is public and describable, so  
> that anyone who can understand the method of reasoning can apply  
> it and come up with the same conclusion.
> 
> All of these criteria, in any science, require that people  
> communicate with each other about what they are doing, how they  
> see things, how they reason, and by what means they draw  
> conclusions. There is no objective standard for any of these  
> things -- only what people can agree on. There is no way for any  
> person to prove to another that these understandings are in fact  
> the same in all the people -- that what one person sees the meter  
> to be displaying is the same as what another person sees. All  
> that can be demonstrated is that these individual, private,  
> subjective understandings do not conflict when they are used in  
> connection with some commonly-observed part of the environment.  
> Given the conditions of human consciousness, perception, and  
> thought, that is as near as we will ever get to Objective Truth.
> 
> When you and I were participating in the Test, we could not, by  
> definition, satisfy all the criteria above. You were the sole  
> judge of whether the challenge had been met. Therefore it didn't  
> matter whether there was a consensus between you and me, or among  
> all those observing the proceedings. The requirement for public  
> criteria publicly applied couldn't be met, as the criteria  
> existed solely in your head, and you didn't say what they were.
> 
> I simply did the best I could until I was satisfied that I had  
> identified a number of controlled variables. Then, by presenting  
> my method and my observations to you -- publicly -- and by laying  
> out my reasoning so you or anyone else could see it, I tried to  
> get you to pronounce the challenge either met or lost.
> 
> I now see your statement
> 
> > I admitted to Bill that his predictions last week (ca.?) were  
> > reasonable in terms of my subjective impressions of my  
> > motivations.
> 
> ... as indicating some consensus between you and me at least on  
> the outcome of the Test. You never commented on whether my  
> evidence or my reasoning were acceptable to you. As one of my  
> conclusions was that you did not want your private controlled  
> variables to be known, I have ceased to ask about them (I'm not  
> much interested in gotchas, and almost always respect people's  
> desires in this regard, whether stated or implied).
> 
> If we took a vote on this, asking if people felt that they  
> understood the evidence, the method, and the reasoning that led  
> to the conclusions, we might come nearer to a scientific  
> consensus. But the rules of the challenge forbade that, and still  
> do. Such a vote would be interesting, not because it would prove  
> anything but because I would like to ask dissenters what there  
> was lacking in the procedure, so they remain unconvinced. My  
> goal, as always, is perfect correlations and the absence of  
> exceptions to the rule. If the correlations shown by a vote are  
> not perfect, if there are exceptions to the consensus, then we  
> might be able to learn from them how to improve the method and  
> eliminate the anomalies. From my point of view, a vote of 80 aye  
> and 20 nay would indicate some serious problems with the method  
> that could not be ignored just because a majority approved.
> 
> As you say, applying the Test can be difficult, particularly if a  
> person does not want a controlled variable to be identified  
> publicly. One thing that would make that difficult for me would  
> be a reluctance to pry out of someone an inner desire that was  
> considered private. I can imagine circumstances where I would try  
> to discover the controlled variable anyway, but there would have  
> to be some very good reason for doing so. And even then, the  
> difficulty I would forsee would not be discovering what the  
> controlled variable actually is; it would be in making any  
> practical use of my discovery, either in getting the victim to  
> admit that I am right, or in getting others to believe it.
> 
> It is really very difficult to conceal a controlled variable if  
> one is actually controlling it. The only practical way is to stop  
> controlling it, or to make the means of control so indirect and  
> devious that the connection is hard to see. And even then, one  
> can hardly conceal ALL controlled variables; to do so would make  
> behaving impossible.
> 
> "Motivation," by the way, is too ambiguous a term to be of much  
> use in a scientific discussion (although I'm sure you didn't mean  
> it in any precise sense). I could discover your motivation for  
> typing your challenge by arranging for your computer screen to  
> show letters different from the ones you hit on the keyboard. I  
> would find that you would take steps to correct that problem, so  
> I would know that you are motivated to make the letters on the  
> screen match the ones you type. The only way to conceal that  
> motivation would be to let the garbage keep appearing on the  
> screen as long as I was watching, and try desperately to figure  
> out the new correspondences.
> 
> But this wouldn't tell me that you are motivated to make those  
> letters appear on the screen as a way to send messages, or that  
> you want to send messages as a way of telling others what you  
> think or finding out what they think, and so on up to the level  
> of why you are doing this in Gravel Switch, KY with the wife and  
> children you have.
> 
> Science doesn't give anyone automatic permission to find out  
> things about people that they don't want known -- even if it may  
> provide methods for doing so.  
> --------------------------------------------------------------  
> Best,
> 
> Bill P.