Comments on: Social Uncertainty Principle

By: Brian Frank

Brian Frank — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:53:43 +0000

Once again invaluable information to help fill the gaps, and a good nudge for me to prove the duality (wish I had a better background for math, this process is giving me a lot of regrets about that; it's definitely a competence I need to work on... when I have more opportunity).

I do try to avoid "duality" as much as possible; I don't want to bring in too many of its connotations.

By: ndrwclrk

ndrwclrk — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:43:29 +0000

This is something I've given lots of thought to over the years. I tend to think about it as the classification of experiences in order to count them is kind of in a mathematical duality with the “thick description” (Geertz's term) of those experiences. There's lots of stuff published on this in the research methods literature, talking about the interplay of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is just one specific example of the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, which is much more general, and may be a better choice to pin your theory on. Cauchy-Schwartz can be applied anywhere there's a duality (in the mathematical sense). For an easy example of a duality, consider lines and points. Two points define a line. Two lines define a point. In math, the kind of relationship that describes this is a duality. To use Cauchy-Schwartz here, you'd just have to prove that qualitative and quantitative methods are somehow dual, or homologous to that in some way. I've come close, but haven't done it yet!

By: Brian Frank

Brian Frank — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:53:43 +0000

By: ndrwclrk

ndrwclrk — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:43:29 +0000

By: Dynamic Motivation | Brian Frank

Dynamic Motivation | Brian Frank — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:13:53 +0000

[...] why I proposed and elaborated an heuristic principle for coping with that [...]

By: Applying Social Uncertainty | Brian Frank

Applying Social Uncertainty | Brian Frank — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:38:46 +0000

[...] from the social uncertainty principle post, using the analogy of Heisenberg’s uncertainty [...]

By: Brian Frank

Brian Frank — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:55:32 +0000

Absolutely, I think I've written almost the exact same thing before. Unfortunately it looks like this could be read as being anti-data; I meant exactly what you said: we need to use both aspects to push each other forward.

Also I should have noted that I'm mainly referring to applied models. Professional researchers in social science seem well aware of the limitations, but when it comes time to make policies etc there seems to be too much supposed certainty.

This post was actually longer but I decided to make the "applied" stuff its own post. I'm going to post it right now with some of your comment attached.

By: phronk

phronk — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:07:25 +0000

Interesting metaphor; I hadn't heard this comparison made before. It's certainly true that there needs to be a trade-off between gut judgments and hard facts.

However, I also think one feeds the other. A person with more raw knowledge will make better intuitive decisions than one with little knowledge. And a person who hones their intuition will be better able to acquire and use raw knowledge effectively.

This is even more true in a broader scientific sense. The more that is known about how an organization or market works, the more we can derive about its social side (and vice versa), and the more we can predict its future progress.

As an aside, yeah, there is a lot of uncertainty about how the mind works so well, especially when it comes to intuition. That's one of the things that I'm working on in my studies. :)