Dear Chris,
As you note, the averages move when the different factors change. I
did not state that point as clearly as I should have done. This would
even be the case in the simplified example of the economy -- and the
average would move, whatever the distribution of wealth. It seemed to
me you were also discussing context and validity, or at least those
were the issues that point seemed significant to me. I should have
caught your point as well.
In this note, you still seem to emphasize context and validity where
you write: "many things happen to change the range of options and the
"average" will thus jump about in consequence (whether it's a
mathematical average or just the rhetorical version)." I agree with
this, too. The examples of this kind of research that I have seen
always seem to start with an average range of good-looking people, so
the "beautiful" or "pleasing" average starts off with people who
already fit a context.
To write, "Anyway I think the whole thing is a bit pointless," seems
to raise the issue of validity.
At any rate, I agree with much of what I've read in the thread ...
it's a matter of teasing out nuances.
On one issue -- the chili contest -- I stand firm. Making a chili
from chilies that already center on traditional ("average") recipes
might succeed, but I can't see actually doing it. This must be
anecdotal. It's hard to imagine sneaking enough chili samples from
all the contestants to make a full entry pot. Most chefs guard their
pots closely while waiting for the judges.
As ever,
Ken
p.s. Regarding your epigram:
"Strange beauty, eight-limbed and eight-handed
Whence camest to dazzle our eyes?"
Octopus (Arthur Clement Hilton)
I have always wanted to open a restaurant specializing in octopus
dishes. There would be a live octopus tank in the middle of the
restaurant. Before you dine, you get to choose the octopus you want.
Then you have to wrestle with it. If you win, you can eat.
--
Chris Rust wrote:
>Ken said
>
>>It seems to me that the point Chris makes is not that averages
>>move, but that many issues affect the validity of research.<
>
>Sorry Ken, but I was saying exactly what you think I didn't say.
>
>The researchers reported by Glenn last week used the term "beauty in
>averageness" suggesting, with experimental data to support them,
>that we are attracted to forms that are close to some "average"
>point (I would prefer to say a point of balance) in the range of
>options that we are used to.
>
>I don't think there is any suggestion that this "average" follows
>the rules of mathematical averages, I put it in quotes to indicate
>that it's a kind of rhetorical gadget.
>
>But even if you accept this theory, you have to note that many
>things happen to change the range of options and the "average" will
>thus jump about in consequence (whether it's a mathematical average
>or just the rhetorical version). We tend to use simpler ideas to
>explain this like "fashion", "growing old" or "seeing something on
>the telly"
>
>Anyway I think the whole thing is a bit pointless. If anybody wants
>to build an "average aesthetics difference engine" and use it to
>predict the exact shape of the most appealing ketchup bottle ever*
>please carry on. I don't eat ketchup anyway.
>
>*don't imagine for a minute that somebody isn't thinking along these
>lines, I've met a few and they frighten me.
>
>Best wishes from Sheffield
>Where I'm pleased to find beauty in the strange as well as the familiar
>**
>Chris
|