Correct, because there are more sources of variance--the interactions. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 10:42 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes. And if I remember correctly, using an additive model increases the > denominator of the F ratio. > > > > N > > > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Sunday, February 14, 2021 10:24 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here > > > > Nick, > > > > A minor clarification if I remember my analysis of variance course > correctly. You can use either an additive model or a non- additive model. > You just have to explain your choice and why you made it. But the total > variance remains the same. > > > > Frank > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 9:14 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jon, > > > > > > I like your idea of a public letter. It grows out of things Glen has said > about the implicit hypocrisy of writing to a person while posting to a > list. I think he is wrong about that, but in a right sort of way. I think > one can have a discussion with one person as a performance before an > interested audience without being a hypocrite. The aspiration is to draw > the larger audience in and to see the larger scope of the discussion. > > > > So I will answer as "Nick" if not as Nick. > > > > Please see Larding, below. > > > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of jon zingale > Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 12:14 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [FRIAM] A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here > > > > Nick, > > > > Is there a technical word for an essay one writes in preparation for > another essay? I have been struggling over the last several weeks to write > two essays, one preparatory on Euclid's second proposition (choices > andm*[NST===>I > have written such preparatory essays. I call them “rants”. My parents use > to talk about authors that had to write whole ranting BOOKS before they > could get down to write the essay that anybody would red. Much of the > critique that Glen was mounting on Friday is to the effect that one must > not confuse one’s rants with the final product. <===nst] * isdirections) > and the other on Chris Marker's *Le Jetee*. The role of Euclid's second > will be to aid in an explication of Marker's conception of time travel and > causality. This connection is perhaps what got me so entranced by the > discussion of Bayesian networks. Did you ever clarify for yourself what > *screening-off* is? > > *[NST===>The problem in teaching something to someone else is never that > they don’t know what X is; it is that they already KNOW what x is and their > knowledge is just plain wrong. I know that that violates the tradition > definition of “knowledge”, but so be it. The philosophical definition of > “knowledge” (justified true belief) is just insane. My breakthrough on > screening off occurred when I realized that it meant the exact opposite of > what I thought it meant. I have yet to work that insight through the whole > paper, so cannot promise that I “have it”, even now, but will let you know. > <===nst] * > > I continue to hope that my contributions to that discussion will inspire > you to tell me more about the connection you see to *variation > partitioning*, an idea I wish to understand better and that you seem to > understand well. > > > > *[NST===>Oh. The idea of variance partitioning is so primitive and so > PsychMethods 101 that I am sure I have rendered it so badly that you just > don’t recognize it. It is just the idea that one can partition all the > variations within any data set from the mean of that data set, into main > effects, interactions between main effects, ….etc…… and residual variance > or “error”. Under certain assumptions which statisticians take seriously > but all psychologists ignore, these partitions are additive so that the > error variance plus all the main effects, plus all the interactions, sums > up to the variance of the whole data set from the set mean. It’s relation > to screening off is probably either wrong or so obscure as to not be worthy > of consideration. * > > > > *<===nst] * > > > > Some time ago, you mentioned the role of *seduction* > > *[NST===>I would be surprised if I was so blatant as to use that word; > however, I do believe that it is the burden of the writer to meet the > reader on his/her own territory and bring him or home. Now, nobody ever > writes to every audiences, so it is an important role of introductions to > declare one’s audience, so others can ignore one’s writing and get on with > their lives. We violate that rule all the time in FRIAM which is why it is > such a mess and such fun. <===nst] * > > in conversation.I am listening to a series of interviews with Giles Deleuze > > *[NST===>I just don’t know how you find the time. I am guessing you can > do so because you can code and listen to podcasts at the same time. What a > wonderful thing that must be. <===nst] * > > and he mentions the disdain he has for talking, and from what I can tell > it is this quality, that of seduction that makes talking dirty in > comparison to writing. Would you write more on seduction? > > *[NST===>Seduction implies dissembling, right? I don’t think there is any > deception in good argumentative writing, any more than there is deception > in a chess move. It’s all there to be seen. Your hope is to position the > readers so they see – if only briefly – your world as you see it. If > readers come to see their world as you see it, that’s a bonus. <===nst] * > > Also along the trajectory of a Deleuzian dive, I am working through his > text *Difference and Repetition*. He writes about an > extensional-intensional distinction in the concept of repetition that I > find fascinating,*[NST===>I haven’t given up on writing something on the > i/e distinction in relation to the “epiphenomenator” so this interest > me<===nst] * *repetition* is in relation to something unique or singular > having no equal or equivalent. He writes: > > > > """ > > But in any case, generality expresses a point of view according to which > one term may be exchanged or substituted for another. The exchange or > substitution of particulars defines our conduct in relation to > generality...By contrast, we can see that repetition is a necessary and > justified conduct only in relation to that which cannot be replaced. > > """ > > > > He gives an example that I can relate with, poetry: > > > > """ > > It is not by chance that a poem must be learned by heart. The head is the > organ of exchange, but the heart is the amorous organ of repetition. Pius > Servien rightly distinguished two languages: the language of science, > dominated by the symbol of equality, in which each term may be replaced by > others; and lyrical language, in which every term is irreplaceable and can > only be repeated. > > """ > > > > Of course, now I have to remember why I felt it important to share this > with you. Maybe it was this... Seduction can only repeat. Recently, you > mentioned a modality that I sympathize with, going to speak and finding > yourself developing an argument. There is the desire to develop, clarify > and share a concept. On philosophy, Deleuze mentions the posing of > problems and the creation of concepts. He speaks about their relation, that > with Leibniz, say, he presents the *monad* and this *concept* is found > necessary or is somehow manifest, from an underlying *problem*. > > > > To read philosophy is to suss out those *unenunciated* (latent?) problems > philosophers aim at with their concepts. Is it fair to say that concepts > belong to the world of generality and exist to clarify and facilitate the > exploration of problems, problems that belong to the world of repetition? > > You appear to have a certain fondness for philosophy, and even if only > through Peirce, I invite your reflections. > > *[NST===>I think Peirce might say that there are no singular objects. If > an object were genuinely singular, would would not be able to see it. > <===nst] * > > > > Jon > > *[NST===>I have to quit, now; this is the best I can do. [sigh]<===nst] * > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > > > > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of jon zingale > Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 12:14 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [FRIAM] A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here > > > > Nick, > > > > Is there a technical word for an essay one writes in preparation for > another essay? I have been struggling over the last several weeks to write > two essays, one preparatory on Euclid's second proposition (choices and > > misdirections) and the other on Chris Marker's *Le Jetee*. The role of > Euclid's second will be to aid in an explication of Marker's conception of > time travel and causality. This connection is perhaps what got me so > entranced by the discussion of Bayesian networks. Did you ever clarify for > yourself what *screening-off* is? I continue to hope that my contributions > to that discussion will inspire you to tell me more about the connection > you see to *variation partitioning*, an idea I wish to understand better > and that you seem to understand well. > > > > Some time ago, you mentioned the role of *seduction* in conversation. I am > listening to a series of interviews with Giles Deleuze and he mentions the > disdain he has for talking, and from what I can tell it is this quality, > that of seduction that makes talking dirty in comparison to writing. Would > you write more on seduction? > > > > Also along the trajectory of a Deleuzian dive, I am working through his > text *Difference and Repetition*. He writes about an > extensional-intensional distinction in the concept of repetition that I > find fascinating, > > *repetition* is in relation to something unique or singular having no > equal or equivalent. He writes: > > > > """ > > But in any case, generality expresses a point of view according to which > one term may be exchanged or substituted for another. The exchange or > substitution of particulars defines our conduct in relation to > generality...By contrast, we can see that repetition is a necessary and > justified conduct only in relation to that which cannot be replaced. > > """ > > > > He gives an example that I can relate with, poetry: > > > > """ > > It is not by chance that a poem must be learned by heart. The head is the > organ of exchange, but the heart is the amorous organ of repetition. Pius > Servien rightly distinguished two languages: the language of science, > dominated by the symbol of equality, in which each term may be replaced by > others; and lyrical language, in which every term is irreplaceable and can > only be repeated. > > """ > > > > Of course, now I have to remember why I felt it important to share this > with you. Maybe it was this... Seduction can only repeat. Recently, you > mentioned a modality that I sympathize with, going to speak and finding > yourself developing an argument. There is the desire to develop, clarify > and share a concept. On philosophy, Deleuze mentions the posing of > problems and the creation of concepts. He speaks about their relation, that > with Leibniz, say, he presents the *monad* and this *concept* is found > necessary or is somehow manifest, from an underlying *problem*. > > > > To read philosophy is to suss out those *unenunciated* (latent?) problems > philosophers aim at with their concepts. Is it fair to say that concepts > belong to the world of generality and exist to clarify and facilitate the > exploration of problems, problems that belong to the world of repetition? > > You appear to have a certain fondness for philosophy, and even if only > through Peirce, I invite your reflections. > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
