[Aleader-dev] Re: Pronouns

[joshua.hold]

[I'm writing in a cybercafe so I have to be brief.]

> I'm having a hard time understanding it ...and am running out of time...
> 
> This looks pretty interesting.  I skimmed it.  It seems promising bc
> it is a doable study -- probably just a small tweak from what I did
> for my dissertation.

Yah, that's what I want to emphasize.  We can verify
it in small steps too.

> I also like the bit about "an ambiguity in OCC"
> or pointing some kinda weakness in OCC, that is remediable via a
> nice doable study.
> 
> Now, I have to grok exactly what you are proposing.  I decided passive
> reading was not working given 1) I am stupid 2) I am sleepy.  So a few
> active comments/questions....
> 
> 
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> >
> > Discussion
> >
> > There was an essential inspiration I received (a few years ago) in the
> > construction of Aleader.  In academic terms, I would describe it as
> > organizing affect analysis around a TOM and the proposition that
> > pronouns (I, we, you, he, she, they) are _the_ basic TOM concepts.
> 
> _the_ basic concepts?  Huh?  I feel much more comfortable with
> important concepts.  Whatever.
>
> > There is a natural correspondance:
> >
> > 2nd person pronouns : Intentionality Detector, Eye Detection Detector
> > and Shared Attention Mechanism.
> 
> Okay, in sort of an intuitive way there might be some kinda
> correspondance.  I'm not exactly sure what it is but okay.

Yah, just bear with me.

> > 3rd person pronouns : Theory of Mind Mechanism
> >
> > Aleader theory is built from evidence found in language as is OCC.
> 
> Hah!  One of my beefs is that OCC is based on introspection.  If you
> call that "evidence" okay.  But, empirical study is much better evidence.
> 
> Anyway, I don't consider anything I've said earthshattering.  I'm
> essentially merely whinning about wording, framing, intensity of
> statements.
> 
> > However, the emphasis is on pronouns. All other linguistic evidence is
> > integrated around a pronoun architecture.
> 
> Okay whatever that means.
> 
> >
> > In your thesis, you are concerned with computing desirability.  I want
> > to combine pronoun appraisal with your goal appraisal.  This email
> > textually describes how this combination might work. Hopefully we can
> > meld the material into an empirical test.  I am hopeful that adding
> > pronoun appraisal is a small enough incremental step that we can build
> > on much of the groundwork laid by your thesis.
> 
> Good.  I'm getting excited.
> 
> >
> > I included the plural pronoun "we" in my list (above).  Actually I
> > want to see how far we can get with only two people plus an witness.
> > This means three people, or two people if one of the participants also
> > takes on the role of the witness.  This is the minimum structure
> > needed to introduce 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person pronouns.  By limiting
> > ourselves to the minimum structure we carve out a smaller piece --
> > hopefully a tractable piece -- of the affect puzzle.
> 
> Okay.  I'm still a little puzzled, but fine lets keep reading.

Think of it like a template or grammar production rule:

situation ::
  <1st person pronoun> <verb> <2nd person pronoun>

> > Let us take Figure 3.1: Example Clinical Workbook Item from your
> > thesis and re-write it in pronoun-desirability form.  For the sake of
> > brevity, I will choose an arbitrary interpretation instead of trying
> > to generate all possible interpretations.  We will add back
> > generativity later.
> 
> Righto.
> 
> >
> > sentence #1: Tracy wants a banana.
> >
> > pronoun-desirability form:
> >   I (1st person) = Tracy
> >     [will be] happy = want a banana
> 
> Okay, I thought "I" was always 1st person.  Does
> "(1st person)" indicate that you are referring to the
> 1st person sense of I as opposed to some other sense?
> Nah, I doubt that.  What else my J mean?  I dunno.
> Moving on...

I am indicating that the first-person pronoun "I" is bound to the person Tracy.

> [Will be] happy = want a banana.
> 
> Hmm, [foo] means foo is optional in unix or regexp speak I think.  But I
> don't think he means that.  It could be a clarificatory parens, but then
> why not use ( rather than [....And sure, if you want X then this sorta
> equals if you get X then you will be happy.  Could this be what J is
> aluding to? 

Yah, [] or () works for me.  I am trying to clarify
verb tense.

Maybe the reason my explaining is not clear is because
the English language is so quirky.  If you just read
it through then we can figure out how to present it
better later.

> > sentence #2: Mummy gives Tracy an apple for lunch.
> >
> > pronoun-desirability form:
> >   I (1st person) = Mummy
> >     indifferent = (Mummy doesn't want anything for herself.)
> >   you (2nd person) = Tracy
> >     happy = an apple for lunch
> >   overall (3rd person) desirability state = gives
> >
> > The "appraising-agents" relation from your thesis is equivalent to the
> > 1st person pronoun by convention.  Therefore, I have chosen Mummy as
> > the appraising-agent.  The rest is just a matter of assembling our
> > evaluation into English sentences.
> >
> > Q. How does Tracy feel about receiving an apple for lunch?
> > A. Mummy thinks that Tracy feels happy about it. (Mummy's point of
> > view + goal substitution)
> >
> > A few things to note:
> >
> > + Sentence #1 is too simple to involve even a 2nd person pronoun.
> > This suggests that sentence #1 does not involve TOM (or even shared
> > attention).  So from a TOM point of view, sentence #1 is merely a
> > logical assertion in the goal appraisal module.  On the other hand,
> > sentence #2 is exactly complex enough to provide bindings for 1st,
> > 2nd, and 3rd person pronouns.  If sentence #2 is affectual then the
> > affect is a TOM affect.
> >
> > + The word "desirability" doesn't read very well for the 3rd person.
> > That's why I invented a new terminology "situational intention" to
> > describe 3rd person desirability states.  Each situational intention
> > state corresponds to a pair of individual desirability states.
> > However, there are also English words which describe situational
> > intention states.  Some examples include: give, take, admire, admired,
> > etc.
> >
> > Going through the exercise of building Aleader & etc, what I found is
> > that given any two known desirabilities (1st, 2nd or 3rd) then you can
> > solve for the remaining unknown desirability.  So once we pick one of
> > the many interpretations of sentence #2 then we can retract knowledge
> > of one of the desirabilities and predict it using logic rules.  The
> > full PowerLoom (KIF) details are available at:
> >
> >   http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/aleader/htdocs/aleader.ploom
> >
> > with some example situations at:
> >
> >   http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/aleader/htdocs/nausicaa.ploom
> >
> > To get a better sense of how frequently we find simple TOM situations
> > of two people plus a witness, I have undertaken a pronoun analysis of
> > OCC emotions.  The analysis doesn't interfere or clash much with OCC.
> > It is more a matter of being explicit about something which was
> > formerly implicit.  Details follow.
> >
> >   Well-being emotions (p 86)
> >
> >   Joy's type spec: (pleased about) a desirable event
> >
> >   Joy's example: The man was pleased when he realized he was to
> >   get a small inheritance from an unknown distant relative.
> >
> >   Distress' example: The driver was upset about running out
> >   of gas on the freeway.
> >
> > Joy's type spec offers bindings only for a 1st person.  Distress'
> > example involves only a 1st person.  This suggests that a TOM oriented
> > model should consider Well-being as part of the desirability appraisal
> > and not as an affect.  Although Joy's example offers bindings for a
> > 1st person (the man), 2nd person (an unknown distant relative), and
> > 3rd person (give), this TOM structure is certainly an artifact of
> > English composition rather than an essential feature of the joy
> > example.  So our rule-base would contain:
> >
> > ;; I don't really know how to write this in KM, but here goes!
> >
> > (every Human has
> >        (goalAgent-of ((a Goal with
> >                      (goalEventType (Inheritance))
> >                      (goalAgentRole (receiver))
> >                      (goalObjectTypeRole (transfered))
> >                      (goalObjectType (money))))))
> > (every Human has
> >        (goalAgent-of ((a Goal with
> >                      (goalEventType (NotRunOutOfGas))
> >                      (goalAgentRole (driver))
> >                      (goalObjectTypeRole (fuel))
> >                      (goalObjectType (gas))))))
> >
> > Now if we go back and do a pronoun-desirability appraisal of joy's
> > example then we can use our goals to determine the desirability.
> >
> > pronoun-desirability form:
> >   I (1st person) = The man
> >     happy = because getting an inheritance (goal congruent)
> >   you (2nd person) = an unknown distant relative
> >     indifferent = assume dead
> >   they (3rd person) situational intention = take
> >
> > As you can see, this is the same thing as before but with the TOM
> > structure exposed.  Now we move on to Fortunes-of-others (p 92).
> > These OCC emotions typically involve two instances of a TOM.  Since we
> > already discussed Well-being emotions, we will only consider the
> > immediate TOM structure.
> >
> > Happy-for example: Fred was happy for his friend Mary because she won
> > a thousand dollars.
> >
> > pronoun-desirability form:
> >   I (1st person) = Fred
> >     happy = aligned with Mary
> >   you (2nd person) = Mary
> >     happy = goal congruent
> >   they (3rd person) situational intention = ready
> >
> >   Sorry-for example: Fred was sorry for his friend Mary because her
> >   husband was killed in a car crash.
> >
> > pronoun-desirability form:
> >   I (1st person) = Fred
> >     sad = aligned with Mary
> >   you (2nd person) = Mary
> >     sad = goal incongruent
> >   they (3rd person) situational intention = protest
> >
> > Resentment example: The executive resented the large pay raise awarded
> > to a colleague whom he considered incompetent.
> >
> > Here is a naive analysis, but it is wrong:
> >
> > pronoun-desirability form:
> >   I (1st person) = the executive
> >     sad = didn't get pay raise
> >   you (2nd person) = a colleague
> >     happy = got large pay raise
> >
> > This is wrong because the appraising-agent is not consistent.  For the
> > executive, desirability is from the executive's point-of-view.  For
> > the colleague, desirability is from the colleague's point-of-view.  If
> > we need to represent both points of view then we need to create two
> > separate TOM situations.  Since this email is getting lengthly, let us
> > look only at the executive's point-of-view.
> >
> > pronoun-desirability form:
> >   I (1st person) = the executive
> >     sad = didn't get pay raise
> >   you (2nd person) = a colleague
> >     indifferent = got large pay raise (past tense)
> >   they (3rd person) situational intention = uneasy
> >
> > Or if the executive considers it like a theft then we should write it
> > like an OCC Prospect emotion (below).  Notice that resentment involves
> > an event status change from unconfirmed to dis/confirmed.
> >
> > pronoun-desirability form:
> >   I (1st person) = the executive
> >     happy = due for raise (unconfirmed)
> >   you (2nd person) = a colleague
> >     sad = if gets pay raise (unconfirmed)
> >   they (3rd person) situational intention = steals
> >
> > Or after the dis/confirmation:
> >
> > pronoun-desirability form:
> >   I (1st person) = the executive
> >     indifferent = no raise (confirmed)
> >   you (2nd person) = a colleague
> >     sad = got pay raise (confirmed)
> >   they (3rd person) situational intention = observes
> >
> > This example appears especially generative because we easily found
> > three interpretations with slightly different shades of meaning.
> >
> > OCC Appraisal of Object emotions (p. 156) operate on the basis of
> > appealingness.  Your thesis did not consider appealingness but for the
> > sake of discussion we can assume an equivalence: it desirable to be
> > appealing and undesirable to be unappealing.
> >
> > Liking example: Mary was filled with affection as she gazed at her
> > newborn infant.
> >
> >   I (1st person) = Mary
> >     happy = her infant is appealing
> >   you (2nd person) = newborn infant
> >     indifferent = busy breathing and looking around
> >   they (3rd person) situational intention = admires
> >
> > Disliking example: John disliked the concert so much that he left in
> > the middle.
> >
> >   I (1st person) = John
> >     sad = her infant is appealing
> >   you (2nd person) = concert
> >     indifferent = are concerts intentional?
> >   they (3rd person) situational intention = uneasy
> >
> > What is surprising about the Disliking example is that a concert is
> > bound to the same slot as the infant.  The output of the
> > intentionality detector seems to be ignored (is a concert a living
> > thing?).  Given what we know about autism, it seems unlikely that we
> > can assign the same affect regardless of the intentionality detector.
> > In OCC, it is clearly stated that Appraisal of Object emotions also
> > apply to taste (as in food).  One solution is to refine the Appraisal
> > of Object emotions by whether the object is judged intentional by the
> > intentionality detector.
> >
> > Conclusion
> >
> > Autism research leads us to believe that TOM is a real
> > psychological-brain component. Therefore, its operation should be
> > accounted for clearly in cognitive appraisal theory.  Looking at the
> > role of pronouns in OCC emotions highlights some mild ambiguity in
> > OCC.  Pronoun analysis guides us to a more precise model of affect
> > eliciting situations.
> >
> > Looking towards an empirical study, I think the dependent variable can
> > be believability of appraisals (like your thesis).  Since we are doing
> > appraisals (not affects), it should work OK to work in textual form
> > (without video).  I'm not sure about the independent variables.  We
> > can vary the point-of-view (1st person / appraising-agent) or ask
> > about the situational intention.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > --
> > A new cognitive theory of emotion, 
> > http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/aleader
> >
> 
>