C-263.2 Ratio theory and method
Behavioral ratios provide a procedural tool with paradigmatic and key features. Ratios frame differences that make a difference (e.g., to learn versus to know). Paradigmatic in that they bring theory and method together in the CEM-productive back and forth envisioned by Kuhn OF and FOR paradigmatic progress. Key in the Forward leverage ratios exert: to help produce independence of the conditions set in ratio and then to encourage CEM change via balance in their behavior … and not just empty or traumatic back and forth behaviors. Ratio theory works because it fits procedurally in the CEM process between condition independence and the balance adjustments we make between or among them while essaying back and forth toward optimum mixture consequentiality (CEM).
To give some methodological impetus to changing everything behavioral – i.e., of consequence TO and FOR Humanity, we ought to consider ratio theory as a complement to (if not a substitute for!) such contemporary conceptual matters as “racial theory,” “ethnic theory,” “gender theory,” “cultural theory,” “political theory,” … the list is endless. These are theories OF, not FOR. So too is the imbalanced identity/agency >1 ratio (conceptually speaking). A lack of concern for matters of behavior per se (Pbeh, Sbeh). Instead, attention to problematic situations in B-spacetime. Inattention to fundamental Splice problems and solutions – i.e., a frequent kind of collision consequence in the World of Possibility. Instead, “mixes” and “mixing”. What we endure in the absence of ratio theory and ratio method is endless, nonproductive discussion– or worse: tries – of these conceptual matters.
That ratio theory works to some extent even with B-speak concepts is a positive. Though not as well: There is a limit to how well concepts can be milled from ore to mettle. But, for example, macro-economic theory uses percent (proportion, a ratio) of “public debt” (interest cost) to gross domestic productivity (total money spent) to weigh the consequentiality of debt amount. Ratios in micro- matters (e.g., inflation, “tragedy of the commons”) are not well explicated (e.g., “selfishness”).
Ratios have worked well in the architecture of music. They also play a role in the body’s physiology, where they provide a “just noticeable difference”: a DIF => DIF. But for quotidian behaviors, we are more likely to rely on state indicators which then need interpretation. Interpretation in situational context, typically. Not in the R-zone context where information is lacking and intelligence must come into play.
Ratio theory is most badly needed for work in the R-zone, for our operating systems, to provide the intelligence that information cannot supply – nor, in its absence, be well used.
***
Because we need to work not only with this or that ratio, but with ratios of ratios … and ratios of ratios of ratios – and so on – this could be an area for procedural technology to make a significant contribution … something like the KMmt proposal for extending Know (an R-word) behavior, as trials, beyond the mere tries of KT behaviors.
Or something for AI tech to work on, redressing the imbalance of efficiency/effectiveness.
Consider too what happens and/or should happen in conducting research.* Is research question and answer and/or problem and solution? Do we confound question with problem? Or answer with solution? What if our answer/question ratio is >1+, and our problem/solution ratio is >1+? What is the ratio for question => answer/problem => solution? ** What should these ratios be for a balanced approach to optimal (CEM) outcome?***
***
* “Research“ should not be read as synonymous with “science.” The latter is often after the fact concerned just with DIF’s (variations) and/or with DIF’s made (i.e., DIF => DIF) and much influenced by the One-ness notion that the difference maker should be logically both necessary and sufficient with respect to the difference made.
** See Topic XII for a more inclusive and extended research model.
*** The heuristic value of increased Mind activity (M…m) in the molecular step (KMmt) comes at a price: complexity (i.e., contingencies) as well as compoundness. This suggests that the increased “intelligence” component might be what “AI” (and the computer) should actually be working on instead of devoting their self to replicating already informed behaviors (e.g., robotically).
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
To give some methodological impetus to changing everything behavioral – i.e., of consequence TO and FOR Humanity, we ought to consider ratio theory as a complement to (if not a substitute for!) such contemporary conceptual matters as “racial theory,” “ethnic theory,” “gender theory,” “cultural theory,” “political theory,” … the list is endless. These are theories OF, not FOR. So too is the imbalanced identity/agency >1 ratio (conceptually speaking). A lack of concern for matters of behavior per se (Pbeh, Sbeh). Instead, attention to problematic situations in B-spacetime. Inattention to fundamental Splice problems and solutions – i.e., a frequent kind of collision consequence in the World of Possibility. Instead, “mixes” and “mixing”. What we endure in the absence of ratio theory and ratio method is endless, nonproductive discussion– or worse: tries – of these conceptual matters.
That ratio theory works to some extent even with B-speak concepts is a positive. Though not as well: There is a limit to how well concepts can be milled from ore to mettle. But, for example, macro-economic theory uses percent (proportion, a ratio) of “public debt” (interest cost) to gross domestic productivity (total money spent) to weigh the consequentiality of debt amount. Ratios in micro- matters (e.g., inflation, “tragedy of the commons”) are not well explicated (e.g., “selfishness”).
Ratios have worked well in the architecture of music. They also play a role in the body’s physiology, where they provide a “just noticeable difference”: a DIF => DIF. But for quotidian behaviors, we are more likely to rely on state indicators which then need interpretation. Interpretation in situational context, typically. Not in the R-zone context where information is lacking and intelligence must come into play.
Ratio theory is most badly needed for work in the R-zone, for our operating systems, to provide the intelligence that information cannot supply – nor, in its absence, be well used.
Because we need to work not only with this or that ratio, but with ratios of ratios … and ratios of ratios of ratios – and so on – this could be an area for procedural technology to make a significant contribution … something like the KMmt proposal for extending Know (an R-word) behavior, as trials, beyond the mere tries of KT behaviors.
Or something for AI tech to work on, redressing the imbalance of efficiency/effectiveness.
Consider too what happens and/or should happen in conducting research.* Is research question and answer and/or problem and solution? Do we confound question with problem? Or answer with solution? What if our answer/question ratio is >1+, and our problem/solution ratio is >1+? What is the ratio for question => answer/problem => solution? ** What should these ratios be for a balanced approach to optimal (CEM) outcome?***
* “Research“ should not be read as synonymous with “science.” The latter is often after the fact concerned just with DIF’s (variations) and/or with DIF’s made (i.e., DIF => DIF) and much influenced by the One-ness notion that the difference maker should be logically both necessary and sufficient with respect to the difference made.
** See Topic XII for a more inclusive and extended research model.
*** The heuristic value of increased Mind activity (M…m) in the molecular step (KMmt) comes at a price: complexity (i.e., contingencies) as well as compoundness. This suggests that the increased “intelligence” component might be what “AI” (and the computer) should actually be working on instead of devoting their self to replicating already informed behaviors (e.g., robotically).
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
S