2001 : Mood
The Year turned out to be a 3.123, which is a major drop off from the previous year, which thus validated my fear that, after such a stellar Year 2000 (a 3.318), 2001 was going to be a major letdown. Well, maybe not major.
October 23 was a "3". On that day, I received the following message which directly impacts the page you are reading.
----- Original Message -----
From: Issa Kohler Hausmann
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 2:25 PM
Subject: trying not to work
Has anyone else questioned the alternative term for 'rate' you use in your statistical diaries - 'perceived mood'? I ask this not to semantically nit-pick, but because I found myself puzzled by the term for various reasons. It struck me that you choose to modify 'mood' with 'perceived', at if to disclaim any inaccuracy linked to the subjective method of assessment?
How else would mood be assessed?
From a position exogenous to the object of study, in which case it would make sense to say 'perceived mood' because the subject assessing the variable is guessing from observable signs.
I guess it does not make sense to me to use an adjective constructed from a verb that implies discerning, estimating, or appraising, - a technique of getting at a variable that necessarily involves a margin of error because of the relation of the researcher to his/her object - to your own internal process of abstracting, averaging and quantifying your daily disposition. I guess I just would not say one's own mood was perceived. It would be like saying 'deduced motivations' if I were to document for the outside world the varied considerations and incentives my actions, if I were to misreport this variable it would not be because of some epistemic or methodological problem, but rather an issue of ulterior considerations for choosing to disclose any particular information.
Anyway back to work
talk to you soon
More Mood Analysis