computational linguistics / natural language processing

Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

oliverthered
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 617
Location: southport, uk

15 Feb 2013, 2:32 am

Hi,
Does anyone want to chat to me about computational linguistics, NLP.
More specifically I'm trying to computationally work out, taking language litterally, not being manioulative or liking being manipulated and some other eleents of language relating to autism and the ego.
and juxtaposed using poetic lanuage, fallacious arguments, manipulative language and those elements of ego.
and also ego in people with schizophrenia which is different from both of those two.
also I suppose ego in nt people which is often easy to spot when they don't dissabiguate the word sense properly, use the less literal word sense for instance. Though there's a bit of a mix, it's actually getting attached, so the wrong use of he she may cause a brief argument of sorts but not quite with the flare up that an autistic may have if, and they so rarely do, they got annoyed by the wrong use of he she.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,069
Location: temperate zone

15 Feb 2013, 4:34 am

I would chat- but I cant really "computate" what you're talking about.



Cacao
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 34
Location: Cyberspace

15 Feb 2013, 6:00 am

You want to make new language?



oliverthered
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 617
Location: southport, uk

15 Feb 2013, 7:47 am

I want to clarify the english language. What I'm actually looking for, when it boils down to it is ego. though there are some definitions of type of ego their also poorly defined and don't cover all types of ego. For instance a lot of peoples use, including some in the scientific community, of egocentric doesn't distinguish very well from egotistical. e.g. someone who's ego centric may go on about trains, someone who's egotistical on the other hand would go on about all the things they did, in a personal way. or talk about other people alot, though that may be egoistic.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,069
Location: temperate zone

15 Feb 2013, 9:09 am

Its not the 400 thousand other words in the English language that youre worried about.

You're just confused about the one word "ego".

So you dont need to analyze the whole of human language.

All you have to do is discuss with others how the word "ego" is used.

Thats what it sounds like to me.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Feb 2013, 10:42 am

Get used to the fact that over 90 percent of the human race is NOT literal minded.

I am an Aspie and I was burdened with literal-mindedness over many decades. By degrees I learned how others operated and taught myself to adapt to the ways of the NT. When in Rome do as the Romans. When in NT land, at least get used to the NTs.

And there is something to be said of the NTs. NT children can read body language and face language when they are 3 to 4 years old. That takes some talent. We folks on the spectrum have the problem and it is our burden to adapt as well as we can.

ruveyn



oliverthered
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 617
Location: southport, uk

15 Feb 2013, 11:10 am

Actually i want to computationally track ego in languge, I just said the defnintions of ego are bad. the definitions of literal are bad too, the definitions of subjective are bad the definitions of 'poetic' are bad the defnintions of pretty much anything cognative are bad, people are bad at metacognition.



oliverthered
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 617
Location: southport, uk

15 Feb 2013, 11:14 am

NTs are pretty bad at reading body/face language, I'm often better than them. I can't do eyes though. Did you know that given a 50/50 chance only 53% of people will pick out a lie from the truth, in language or body language. with training that goes up to 90+%, so people are also pretty bad at hiding a lie too. i'd say so bad it's computable, to a greater or lesser degree... i.e. this person is a compulsive lier or manipulator. this person is a compulsive truth teller and hates manipulating or being manipulated for instance.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,069
Location: temperate zone

15 Feb 2013, 12:00 pm

oliverthered wrote:
Actually i want to computationally track ego in languge, I just said the defnintions of ego are bad. the definitions of literal are bad too, the definitions of subjective are bad the definitions of 'poetic' are bad the defnintions of pretty much anything cognative are bad, people are bad at metacognition.


You want to computatonally track the word "ego" in language.

For what purpose?

And why do you have a problem with 'egocentic' vs 'egotistical'?

The 'ego' in ego 'egotistical' is the same word as the 'ego' in 'egocentric' ( in both cases ego just means 'self'). In the first the person's ego is being deliberately served, in the other- the person is niavely oblivious to others but himself. But the word ego does not change in meaning.

So what exactly is the problem you are trying to solve?



oliverthered
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 617
Location: southport, uk

15 Feb 2013, 12:22 pm

For what perpouse?

Psychology and neurology

What does self mean, and I'd like the phsysics lecture to go along with that please. i can actually give you a neurological description for one kind of self vs another which relates to the kind I want to track. and based on it's presentation define different types of self and how they relate to psychological and neurological features. It's also useful for theory of mind and that kind of thing.



oliverthered
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 617
Location: southport, uk

15 Feb 2013, 12:33 pm

neurologically there are several (more than three, I can't remember them all off the top of my head) different kinds of self and indeed other selfs like things.

There are also three different kinds of empathy (neurologically) that relate back to those three things I mentioned before, so that's at least 9 so far.

Then there's theory of mind on top of that that uses a different part of the brain again.

I can cite all of those if your interested. So ego isn't very well defined. then there's the id and super ego which as yet doesn't seem to have much backing in neurology. personally I experiance 'other' kinds of ego on top of that and I've also had a psychosis so what they call ego collapse and a lot of experiance with various different kinds of hallucinations e.g. dopamine supersensitivity, vs lsd, vs ketamine, vs mdma, vs SSRIs +- cannabis + hallucinations caused by depression, + anti-psychotic withdrawl. so I know my way around my own, ego and parts of it pretty well and many of my exeriances fit with crude medical descriptions that you would expect e.g. dopamine supersensitivity being animated hallucinations. but most definatly not with others, e.g. katamine being anything like psychosis.



oliverthered
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 617
Location: southport, uk

15 Feb 2013, 12:45 pm

in language there's things like you, me, him, it, they etc....
degrees of freedom / objectiity (that's one of the bits I'm having difficulty finding stuff on, countability of nouns is relates)
emotive language e.g. omnipotent (which suggests some human features and power but you wouldn't really all it emotional) vs 234 (which is just a depresonalize number)
emotional langauge happy, sad, hurt, frustrated, angry, insulted etc....
personal related language e.g. the house vs street or leg vs street or house vs orange etc....
etc....



oliverthered
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 617
Location: southport, uk

15 Feb 2013, 2:43 pm

another way to put it is there is a 'gross' spectrum of ASPD, PDD and Schizophrenia and probably bi-polar but I don't have much data on bi-polar.

Basically people with ASPD have MORE cognative empathy (that is people centric, what I call a sense of self, and it really is a sense of self neurologically) than NT people and less affective empathy (that is when asked to think about a feeling)... and PDD people have less cognative empathy (so to put it crudly are more object centric than 'people' centric) but have greater affective empathy.

No one in study about co-morbid diagnosis has a PDD and ASPD together, their mutually exclusive.

Also schizophrenics have a different variant, they are self centric, that is they believe themselves and things that go on in their mind EVEN IF THEY AREN'T REAL or they are categorically informed so.

The DSM says you can't have schizophrenia and a PDD and people with ASPD don't get schizophrenia though people going through a psychosis (that can include non schizophrenics, you need two kinds of psychosis to get a schizophrenia diagnosis) have more aspd traits. And there is neurology that relates that back to the different types of empathy i have mentioned, so the sense of self.

anyhow that object centric, people centric, self centric can be picked up in language useage... the first is often called literal, the second is often called poetic or manipulaticve the last delusional.

NT people actually do a bit of everything, tending towards the people centric when I speak to them, but they do have insight, so it's not mall adaptive like it is in a personality disorder.

My origional aims where to help prevent miss-diagnosis and potentially aid better counselling... but it looks like it may work to help distinguish the actual nature of the conditions or a persons (some are complex so may actually be two conditions that just look similar), down to a neurological and developmental level. That could help, with for instance, targeted medication and new developments in medication.

I am absolutly against a cure for any of those conditions especially as it's not possible to tell how they relate to human evolution especially social and technological evolution. Personally I don't think a 'cure' is even possible since the conditions are organic/biological.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,069
Location: temperate zone

16 Feb 2013, 7:27 am

Well - it isnt 'linguistics" per se that youre seeking to 'computate'- its "language as used by psychology and psychiatry" that you are yearning to code-ify.

You want words like 'ego' to be nailed down to one meaning,and one meaning only- and not drift around in meaning.

Actually I remember a funny moment in a highschool literature class. The Freudian categories of "ego, Id, and superego" came up. The teacher picked a guy eagerly raising his hands who had studied it to explain it to the class ( all including the teacher were not upto speed on the terminology).

When he got to the "Id" he rattled off its traits- its concerned with food, and sex, and its very egotistical....."

There was a sudden murmer in the class- everyone including I were baffled.

Somebody finnally sheepishly raised their hand and politiely asked the question we all wanted to ask "how can the Id be 'egotistical'. Isnt it the 'ego'... thats 'egotistical'?"

The guy holding forth just got annoyed and replied "the ego NOTHING TO DO with egotism" and continued with his lecture.

So..if "the ego has nothing to do with egotism" something does need to be clarified! You may be on to something.



oliverthered
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 617
Location: southport, uk

16 Feb 2013, 3:04 pm

actually I want to work out how people use ego in dialogue, which will then in tern help to clarify what ego means and also help with neurology etc... (i.e. being able to look at the bits of the brain that are used, what happens when people take drugs or have a psychosis and what happens when those bits of the brain no longer work, e.g. after a stroke or accident. it should also help with human development.)
I should also in theory help with things like artifical intelegence and more important to people stop people from being stigmatised and the 'cure autism now' type people.


Now I have some really obvious examples, but I need to know the correct linguistics terms for what's going on to be able to explain them, or indeed explain what is wrong with those terms.
So for instance what's commonly called taking things litrally occurs when some gets confused about the subjective elements of the language, that is the bits that are held in the mind.

Another group of people do the opposite, they get confused about the objective bits of the language.

and so on.

I've also noticed some much more frequent and finer types of language use, such as people putting themselves down or using lots of 'power' words. So I want to do some language analysis on that finer detal on larger amounts of text than just the brief obvious 'mistakes' people make to see if there's any corrilition there are my definition of egos predicts that there should be, and that it should also change when someone has a psychosis for instance depending upon what kind of psychosis they have.



oliverthered
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 617
Location: southport, uk

16 Feb 2013, 3:22 pm

How do people express their 'ego', people are supposedly useless at metacognition, but supprisingly seem to be able to tell me the same thing when i ask them or identify, or not, when I ask them other things.

For instance the way I identified the way that schizophrenics saw the world was.....surprisingly... to ask them!! !! I've seen a lot of psychiatrists and not one of them asked me anything like that. And when I tell the schizophreics how I see the world differetly they look at me like I'm barking mad. Pretty much everyone thinks that everyone, or indeed everything else thinks or experiances the world in pretty much the same way they do. that's why they call it THEORY of mind not FACT of mind I suppose, some people have a little too much theory and not enough practice.