On Aug 18, 2009, at 11:10 AM, jeremy hunsinger wrote:
> I tend to think that humans are not going to act significantly
> differently if you make different assumptions about them .
I think you miss the point entirely. It is not the other person that
will act differently because of how we interpret their intentions. The
interpreter will - and that may lead to changes in the behavior of the
one interpreted.
if we in the end have 2 designs, and we are talking about the designs,
then for the purposes of research, there is no need to import any
intent or other transcendental/hidden properties.
We disagree. Interpretation of anything requires the application of
assumptions or whatever knowledge is accessible to the interpreter.
Knowledge is cumulative and adaptive and thus is selectively
intentional and usually transcendental - ie factual evidence, if it
exists, is repurposed to suit the situation at hand .
When you manage to operationalize someone's intent without other
narrative possibilities, I'll be interested to see it.
So would I! Any Interpretation of an intent is a narrative! I can
only give you a conceptual model of how I assume, based on knowledge
of cognitive processes, an intent becomes operational in someone's
mind. I can not situate the model in their mind, hence it is an
interpretive stance that I take - one that helps me make sense of
whatever information they present to me.
Chuck
|