From metaphysics to psychophysics and statistics

by Borg (see, e.g., Borg 1978; also Borg et al. 1987). Invariant relations have been found between heart rate, blood lactate and ratings (R) of perceived (P) exertion (E) according to the "RPEscale" (probably one of the most commonly used psychophysical methods, with several hundred studies performed in the last few years and approximately one million people exposed to it every year), and the "CR-scale' (category scale with ratio properties, Borg 1982). For interpersonal comparisons a "rating scale" may be superior to a "ratio scale"! Guilford (1936) provides a good review of rating scales (with an example from descriptions of weather in 1805 reported by Titchener). He did not make the same mistake as Stevens and most psychophysicists, including Fechner notable exceptions are Parducci (1984), Heller and the Wiirzburg group (see, e.g., Heller 1990), Borg (1962), and a few others. Guilford understood the importance of "descriptive terms" and "landmarks." He concludes that the rating methods "have overshadowed the applications of all the other evaluative methods based upon personal judgements" (p. 263). But he also points out how "indispensable" these methods are to theoretical psychology. I definitely agree with him, but would also like to stress the importance of using the best properties of the ratio scaling methods for general, relative intensity evaluations, together with the best properties of the category-rating methods for level determinations and interindividual comparisons. This use of "meaningless" numbers with "meaningful" linguistic terms will improve the possibilities of understanding human communication and the problems of intersubjectivity.