Anyway, I heard a norm mentioned for grids as a measurement of cognitive
complexity. This was when the first three components totalled under about 70% of
the grid energy. However, in my experience though one should make allowances
when interpreting a greater number of constructs, I'm not sure that stability
within the first three components is compromised by the number of constructs.
Whereas cognitive complexity tends towards a randomness, some larger computer
assembled grids show strikingly stable self organising maps. Though the point in
humans is well made, are we to infer that if computers can elicit very large
grids then the same term of cognitive complexity implies that our AI computers
might go crazy?
It seems to me to be very dangerous to use such a norm to measure cognitive
complexity because of its ease of sinister adoption by draconian labelling
machines. For example it would take someone an awful lot of constructs to come
up with a novel ideology today. Premptively this 'norm' would label the
individual insane without needing to examine the 'ideology' which was the
sinister motive of the labellers to begin with.
Cordially,
Jim Legg
Kathleen Molloy wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Crocket (1965) uses the total number of constructs elicited by an individual
> to be a measure of cognitive complexity. I was wondering if anyone knew any
> norms for the number of constructs elicited in grid measures?
> I'm hoping for an urgent reply!
>
> Thanks
> Kathy
>
> Kathleen Molloy
> University of Luton
> http://www.BPS.studentpage.mcmail.com/BPS.html
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%