Sounds like your department was mixture of clinicians and experimenters. Frank
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 10:01 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: > OK, Glen, fair enough and stipulated. I hope you know how much I value > your perspective. > > > > But ...One of the constant debates in my field (well, perhaps more > accurately, in the field of most of the members of my Department, was > between the "nomothetic" and the "idiographic". Knowing you as well as I > do, I know that before I get to the end of this sentence you will have > looked those terms up and come to understand them better than I do. But > still, to bolt the argument to the ground, a bit, let me explain them > myself. It is like the difference between the graph in a scientific paper > of the mean value of the independent variable and the values of the > dependent variable, as interpolated -- that's nomothetic -- and the picture > of three individual subjects which represent the values of the independent > variable -- that's idiographic. Nomothetic study seeks to get at the laws > that relate one kind of thing to another; the other seeks to capture the > ... dare I say .... essence of a phenomenon through a single instance. > Physics writing is often said to be nomothetic; history writing is said to > be idiographic. Psychology is said to be both. Studies of rats in mazes > are nomothetic in intent; we really DON'T give a damn for the individual > rat. But clinical case studies are definitely idiographic. My field -- > ethology -- has often been torn between the two impulses, and the > idiographic gave way in the end to the nomothetic. To my regret, while I > was on sabbatical in the Maddingley {ethological} Field Station in > Cambridge, England I met a woman, Joan Hall Craggs, who had managed to > record and sonogram all the song types sung by a single male black bird > during his 18 year (could that be right?!) career. She had binder upon > binder of them in her office, all beautifully preserved, dated, and > fieldnoted. I am afraid, when she died, the whole lot went in the > dumpster. A nomothetical scientist would argue that such a record would > tell one nothing about "blackbirds"; an idiographic scientist would claim > that without such a record, we would never know what was possible for a > black bird. (By the way, a "black bird" in England is a very close > relative of our American robin'\; robins, in England are something else > entirely.) > > > > Now, I have already stipulated that, in a sense my focusing on my > individual case is to some extent narcissistic and, well, stupid. However, > focusing on a single case is not *necessarily* either. And since I know > my case best of all, and since the home church is living it right now, I > think keeping the Santa Fe numbers before us GROUNDS us and helps us, > perhaps, not to think of "cases" and "deaths" in the disembodied way that > we do when we are performing as nomothetic scientists. Every nomothetic > case is an intersection of just a few variables of interest; every > idiographic case is the intersection of an infinity of variables, any one > of which may be of interest to somebody. Thinking of the “self-case”, > helps to keep that fact in view. > > > > Thanks as always for you insights, > > > > Hope to see you tomorrow. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ? > > Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 4:26 PM > > To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] covid19.healthdata.org > > > > OK. This is definitely a different message from what I thought you said. I > thought you were saying their estimates were optimistic. And since their > estimates include their uncertainty bands, that includes not peaking till > much later than what their chart might suggest, maybe 4.5k deaths PER DAY > at the peak, 125k dead overall, etc. If we consider the outside of their > uncertainty, that's not optimistic at all. > > > > You can go back to MA right now. And if you're super careful, you can most > likely do it without getting infected. So, your "pessimism" is not about > the peak, total bed availability, or whatever. Your pessimism seems to have > more to do with *you* (and your immediate clique). That you could go ahead > and do what you need to do now, but won't, isn't pessimism about these > estimates. It's fear for your own condition. That's understandable, of > course, but not really about this estimate or its methods. > > > > > > On 4/9/20 2:49 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Perhaps they seem optimistic to me only because mine have been so > pessimistic. I have assumed that I am immobilized here in Santa Fe for the > next year. I even put up a list on my wall of 365 days and have been > crossing them off, one by one. What I see on that site suggests to me that > I might actually get to my garden in Massachusetts by early June. I just > heard an interview with Daniel Kahneman (who is in my age range) who says > essentially that he expects to stay home for the rest of his life because > of the disease. I just heard from Dave West (He's fine!) who decided to > make a run for home from Amsterdam and essentially had a 747 to himself. > Perhaps now is exactly the time to make a run for MA. > > > > > > So, you see, my thinking about all of this is deranged and intensified > by its personal implications. So perhaps I ought to be keeping my thoughts > to myself. I have my favorite dog in this fight; too much skin in this > game. > > > > > > My pessimistic view is that until we are back to contact tracing levels > everybody should stay home. Others seem to imagine essentially eliminating > the disease from the population by social distancing in the next month. and > then going back pretty much to business as usual. I WANT those "others" to > be right, but I am having a hard time selling it to myself. At the > minimum, any restarting would require public health departments to have the > power to snatch contacts off the street, throw them in sterilized vans, and > cart them off to motels to watch Fox News for two weeks. Apparently, > people boarding airplanes in Wuhan, are doing so in hazmat gear. I just > don't see that happening, here. Even at the current "peak", SW airlines is > not screening passengers or taking temps at the gate. > > > > > > I read some where that Trump is losing a Billion dollars (a month? from > the crisis. Hey, every cloud has a silver lining. > > > > > > -- > > ☣ uǝlƃ > > > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... > .... . ... > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > thompnicks...@gmail.com > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... > .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/