A couple thoughts before the next rejection

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Bruce Abbott (2011.02.06.1405 EST)]

A couple thoughts.doc (23 KB)

···

Bill & Bruce

Update:

The Idle handler seems to be functioning somewhat differently in C# than in Delphi. I’m looking at ways to implement it with the same functionality and exact measuring.

Disturbance creation is functioning great.

Oh, and my English benefited from all the books I wasted my eyes on

Will get back soon,

Adam

Thanks for the progress report, Adam. When you get it working correctly, I’d like to see your source code and try it out in my Microsoft Visual Studio C# Express environment!

Bruce

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2011.02.07.1020)]

Dick Robertson (2011.02.06.1600CDT) –

A couple thoughts before the next rejection.

Hi Dick

I think this will mystify many on CSGNet since only a subset of those on CSGNet have been involved in (or aware of) this effort. Maybe you could resend it just to the relevant group, some of whom are not on CSGNet.

Best

Rick

···

Literary agents, I’ve been told, average about eight seconds to decide whether a piece they are looking at is worth further study. That is the only way they can garner what they think they can work with out of the hundreds of proposals that cross their desks daily. I suspect journal editors operate in something like the same manner, as we’ve already been told of the volumes of material they must consider daily.

So what rules do they set themselves to handle this problem? We don’t know exactly, you can’t take their written descriptions of their guidelines. They are the rationales according to common values that stand in for whatever are the real CVs for which they are controlling.

But there was a clue in the rejection letter of the American Psychologist editor. Remember the place where he explained that—to be considered—a paper must have a more or less universal appeal to psychologists in general (words to that effect). It must deal with basic theory (and by implication, not confined to a specialty or subspecialty.

We are right to wonder, did he not see where we said, early on, that that is exactly what this paper was about? I can speculate that he never got as far as to read that. Maybe he was reacting to some word or phrase in the title and decided the paper was a review of some specialty like cybernetics, neuro-cybernetics (if such a thing existed) or the like. If he did actually read more of the paper than the title, what did he make of the statement about basic theory? He must have disagreed—it was not general in the sense he thinks of.

So what then? Well, we know that psychology is on a roll now, with alliances with neurology on the one hand and “Behavioral Economics” on the other. After all, Kahneman got the first Nobel (am I right about that?) as a psychologist, even though it was in economics. I haven’t looked directly at much of his stuff, but remember Ariely, whose stuff is an outgrowth of that? Recall his first observation that lead to the first experiments he presented, the one about how the majority of a group of 100 students chose the $125 on-line plus print subscription to The Economist, when it was matched with an on-line only for $59 and a print-only for $125 also. But when he had only the on-line and the on-line plus print, a majority chose the on-line only. He says of these advertisers that they knew something about human nature.

Now “human nature” is a key term, coding for “basic,” or general-interest. The reader says, “Wow this tells about how the brain works, and it’s practical too, knowing this fact about all behavior I will be on the alert not to fall for tricks like that.” There you have the ingredients of wide appeal: universal and practical. Does this tell us what a journal editor who deals in “the most basic theory” stuff would be impressed with? Yes, because it has one more salient attribute. It’s not hard to conceptualize. It’s compatible with the familiar view of things.

If there is anything to what I’m saying here I would expect that a lot of hard pressed journal editors find it easy to find good copy while still playing it safe with material that stays within familiar patterns.

So what is to be done then? Is there a journal out there that likes examples of controversial, paradigm-revolution material? Or what about Scientific American? Might they not go for the many examples of running programs of interesting behavior? Or Science? Bill got in there right at the beginning. Is it worth a try again? Or is it an issue for philosophy of science? I raise these questions because I don’t know the answers. I’m not current enough anymore. But I’m hoping one of you out there knows.

inal Message -----
From: Bruce Abbott bbabbott@FRONTIER.COM
Date: Sunday, February 6, 2011 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: Steering task model, help needed

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

[From Bruce Abbott (2011.02.06.1405 EST)]

Bill & Bruce

Update:

The Idle handler seems to be functioning somewhat differently in C# than in Delphi. I’m looking at ways to implement it with the same functionality and exact measuring.

Disturbance creation is functioning great.

Oh, and my English benefited from all the books I wasted my eyes on

Will get back soon,

Adam

Thanks for the progress report, Adam. When you get it working correctly, I’d like to see your source code and try it out in my Microsoft Visual Studio C# Express environment!

Bruce

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Dick_Robertson]

Whoops,

Thanks Rick. I wasn’t paying attention about that.

Best,

DICKR

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Date: Monday, February 7, 2011 12:19 pm
Subject: Re: A couple thoughts before the next rejection
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

[From Rick Marken (2011.02.07.1020)]

Dick Robertson (2011.02.06.1600CDT) –

A couple thoughts before the next rejection.

Hi Dick

I think this will mystify many on CSGNet since only a subset of those on CSGNet have been involved in (or aware of) this effort. Maybe you could resend it just to the relevant group, some of whom are not on CSGNet.

Best

Rick

Literary agents, I’ve been told, average about eight seconds to decide whether a piece they are looking at is worth further study. That is the only way they can garner what they think they can work with out of the hundreds of proposals that cross their desks daily. I suspect journal editors operate in something like the same manner, as we’ve already been told of the volumes of material they must consider daily.

So what rules do they set themselves to handle this problem? We don’t know exactly, you can’t take their written descriptions of their guidelines. They are the rationales according to common values that stand in for whatever are the real CVs for which they are controlling.

But there was a clue in the rejection letter of the American Psychologist editor. Remember the place where he explained that—to be considered—a paper must have a more or less universal appeal to psychologists in general (words to that effect). It must deal with basic theory (and by implication, not confined to a specialty or subspecialty.

We are right to wonder, did he not see where we said, early on, that that is exactly what this paper was about? I can speculate that he never got as far as to read that. Maybe he was reacting to some word or phrase in the title and decided the paper was a review of some specialty like cybernetics, neuro-cybernetics (if such a thing existed) or the like. If he did actually read more of the paper than the title, what did he make of the statement about basic theory? He must have disagreed—it was not general in the sense he thinks of.

So what then? Well, we know that psychology is on a roll now, with alliances with neurology on the one hand and “Behavioral Economics” on the other. After all, Kahneman got the first Nobel (am I right about that?) as a psychologist, even though it was in economics. I haven’t looked directly at much of his stuff, but remember Ariely, whose stuff is an outgrowth of that? Recall his first observation that lead to the first experiments he presented, the one about how the majority of a group of 100 students chose the $125 on-line plus print subscription to The Economist, when it was matched with an on-line only for $59 and a print-only for $125 also. But when he had only the on-line and the on-line plus print, a majority chose the on-line only. He says of these advertisers that they knew something about human nature.

Now “human nature” is a key term, coding for “basic,” or general-interest. The reader says, “Wow this tells about how the brain works, and it’s practical too, knowing this fact about all behavior I will be on the alert not to fall for tricks like that.” There you have the ingredients of wide appeal: universal and practical. Does this tell us what a journal editor who deals in “the most basic theory” stuff would be impressed with? Yes, because it has one more salient attribute. It’s not hard to conceptualize. It’s compatible with the familiar view of things.

If there is anything to what I’m saying here I would expect that a lot of hard pressed journal editors find it easy to find good copy while still playing it safe with material that stays within familiar patterns.

So what is to be done then? Is there a journal out there that likes examples of controversial, paradigm-revolution material? Or what about Scientific American? Might they not go for the many examples of running programs of interesting behavior? Or Science? Bill got in there right at the beginning. Is it worth a try again? Or is it an issue for philosophy of science? I raise these questions because I don’t know the answers. I’m not current enough anymore. But I’m hoping one of you out there knows.

inal Message -----

From: Bruce Abbott bbabbott@FRONTIER.COM
Date: Sunday, February 6, 2011 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: Steering task model, help needed
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

[From Bruce Abbott (2011.02.06.1405 EST)]

Bill & Bruce

Update:

The Idle handler seems to be functioning somewhat differently in C# than in Delphi. I’m looking at ways to implement it with the same functionality and exact measuring.

Disturbance creation is functioning great.

Oh, and my English benefited from all the books I wasted my eyes on

Will get back soon,

Adam

Thanks for the progress report, Adam. When you get it working correctly, I’d like to see your source code and try it out in my Microsoft Visual Studio C# Express environment!

Bruce

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
> www.mindreadings.com