comments

To Johan Weinl

Like your ability to make an good answer short, but still give a clear answer. It’s something that I cound find difficult to do. But some consepts, like ”define defition” could be make clearer with help of an example or further explination.

To Ekaterina-Karpukhina

I like the way you described Sense-data. You include and discussion on knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description, in a good way. Compared to others, including myself, who tried to get a more direct explanation or definition on sense-data. It's maybe easer to get an idea of what sense-data is in those more direct description. But I like the fact that you show a relevant discussion in your answer, it's makes it clearer that you really have read the text.

To Oscar Friberg

I find your answer for question two interesting. Even if your answer could be and probably is true, it opens up for some discussions. Its true that if an experiment show same result on 100 tests, we could not say for sure that the same result will come on the 101 test. The results will thereby not show us an absolute truth. But if a large amount of testes bring the same result, the result are approaches a statement of fact. Questions that comes up when I read your answer is, is there a limit of same results needed, before we can call it statement of fact? If so, how what is it? (expressed in numbers) And could an experiment be in an grey-area and thereby be both a proposal and statement of fact on the same time?

To Jakob

I also think the authors are narrow minded, and have hard do understand there criticism. But with knowledge of the author’s background and in what time it was written make it somehow easier to understand, I think.

Do you after this week’s lecture and seminar have the same idea of what is "old", and "new" media? I think about the power the new media has, hand how it can "manipulate" people, or how it could be consider as a threat to culture and art.

To Johan Weinl

I also have a hard time to answer all the questions, by just reading the text. Even if I think you have clear answer on all questions, except on question 3. Do you have an idea of what "old" media is, thanks to the seminar or lecture? And you find any topic or concept where interesting in the seminar?

To Carl Arhsjö

I had a hard time to understand was "myth" is, but I like your description of myth and think you have a good discussion on how enlightenment is related to myth, I cant do otherwise but to agree with you. But I had a slightly different sight on what "culture industry" is. I think Adorno and Horkheimer in a way claim that it is something undemocratic, since the media was and is often owned by big companies who decide what the media should contain. I don’t think it’s the truth for today, thanks to our many media platforms, and the consumer in a way has become the producer.

To Victor Arvid Ignacio Olsson Vesga

Good that you find a interesting paper, I wonder from what journal? I also wonder what kind if theory do you think they use (analysis? explanation?), and even if they presented the theory in a good way, do you find anything that the authors could make better?

To uliia Zabavina

Hello! I wonder little what you think about your paper, was it a good/bad paper? Does it exist something that was weird or that the authors could make better?

To Johan Gårdstedt

Did you find it easy to decide which theory type that wear used in your paper? Would you argue that it exist only one correct theory type, or is it up to the reader to decide which theory type the paper belongs to? Could several types be right way to describe a theory?

To Martin Johansson

When I first read Ylva’s research paper, I thought that a user study was missing. But after the lecture, I don’t think so anymore. Because the purpose was not to create a final product that people like or want to buy, the purpose was to show that interaction with robots could be made on several ways, even with physical objects. However some things in the text will not be proven, because of the missing user study. Like we don’t know if the products became more playful with the new interactions.

On my blog

From to Ekaterina Sakharova

”Hi Tommy! Thank you for your post, I think that you made a good compilation of our work at the seminar. You write that paper-based surveys have a higher response frequency then web-based ones. I remember that Olle Bälter said so and I was really surprised. I really do not understand how it is possible. I think that the filling of paper forms requires more action from the respondent. He must specifically find time to fill it. Besides, to handwrite is harder than to make some click on the mouse button. Moreover, most likely you want the person to send the questionnaire by mail. I do not understand why then it provides more responds. What do you think?”

Answer: I think that paper-based surveys often are often given by a physical person in front of you. In that way it is more personal, the participant feels like he/she doing a favor. And it’s very easy to hand in a paper if the person (which the case often is) is in front of you. If you think of course-evaluation for example, it’s easier for the participant if the teacher bring a paper that he/she hand out and then collect. Compared to if we students have to go to a computer and do several clicks on links in order to get to the survey. So my answer is that I think that paper-based surveys could be the easiest way for the participant.

From Brainy Bad Luck Brian

As you pointed out sometimes theory is misinterpreted or confused with hypothesis and data. What I am curious to learn about is how the peer reviewing process actually works for journals and what steps do they use to ensure that the papers that are published are good quality?

Answer: have a weak memory about Stefan said something like papers in journal will be review twice. First will some heaver problems in the papers be corrected, second time they probably focus more about the details, if their is no bigger problem in the papers. 

So the author get will get the paper for correction at least twice, and I assume that the people that review the paper is good in there job, and used to look after some common problem.

This is only how I think the problem is, thanks to a weak memory.

From Filip Erlandsson

Answer: Stefan said that the second seminar would be more discussion about the "what theory is". Think I had bad luck to be sick almost whole this week. The second seminar was a seminar I really wanted to be in, sense the first wasn’t so much about theory. However I think your description on the seminar is quite good, and somehow answers some questions I had.

From Stefan Etoh

Hi.

I find it a little bit difficult to follow along your argument about method 1 and 2. What was these methods and why were they used? 

I'm also curious about what image technologies they used? Do they ever say why they used this type over another?

Answer: Well, as far I understand by the meaning of "method", it's how they use the detectors, sense a detector can be used i several difference ways. It's really hard to tell exactly what the different methods means, sense the text refers the explanations of the methods to references. For one method, they explain quickly with quite hard math formulas (that I don't understand), and write "this formula combining with (reference)" do that. So to be honest, even I don't really know the differences and therefore I argued for the text is of an analysis theory type.

Almost the same thing with the technologies, but they mention the benefits with the different technologies, and say like "this is better to detect the pattern of couples". To really understand the technical part, I think I also need to read the text references.

From Zahra A

Hi.
It seems like you chose a really confusing and difficult paper, well done on trying to explain and make sense of it anyway!
I'm wondering though about the proposed new strategy "that makes use of the pattern that appears when people overlapping each other". If I understood correctly, this is the 2nd method, right? Did the author explain the process of how they came up with that new strategy, or is that also only referenced to? By your description, it seems like they briefly proposed the strategy and then went right ahead with the study of the two methods to answer their questions about the detectors.

Answer: The way they make us of the pattern that appears when people occluded each other is not the 2nd method, it’s the second detector. As far as I understand, there is different kind of methods to use the detectors and they try two different methods when they text compare the new "joint detector" (that make use of the pattern of two occluded), and the old single person detector. However they never use the first method for the joint detector while they use both the first and second method for the older "single-person detector"