A Wish and a Plea

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

From [Marc Abrams (2004.08.29.1258)]

While the rhetoric flies back and forth, on both sides, during this very
heated political season I am asking the folks on CSGnet and pleading with
Bill Powers to _please_ consider the potential importance of all the mis and
dis information that people are walking around with because of their basic
lack of understanding of human behavior. But PCT _DOES NOT_ hold all the
answers. It is the _FOUNDATION_ of the _ALL_ social science. But it _MUST_
be integrated with what is already known in these fields about human
behavior.

For example, 'Behaviorists' are not 'wrong'. They have noticed certain
aspects of human behavior for over a century. They just don't have the whole
picture, so unfortunately they base their conclusions on a partial
understanding. That is one reason why Bruce Abbott, to this day, believes he
can 'integrate' the two. Of course he can, and he must, as we all need to
do. PCT needs to integrate itself with all existing theories that make
sense, _NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND_. Because we need to account for all the
behavior they do, and do a better job of explaining it. Otherwise people
will not switch. _ECONOMIC_ theory tells us so and PCT tells us why those
economic processes exist.

But before any of this can happen we need to know what we are dealing with.
We need to understand _HOW_ we actually can inform these other theories and
how they inform us. That is, what is the connection? These theories exist
because people have _ACTUALLY_ noticed some aspects of human behavior and
tried to account for it.

This is my last plea. If you folks don't want to deal with me or Williams
that's you business, and I certainly can't and won't speak for Bill
Williams, but if you want me out of here just remain silent now and I'll be
gone. If you think I'm all full of hot air and no substance then don't
respond. Because if you don't, then I will truly understand you folks have
no foresight and your narrow mindedness will keep you in a bunker for a
_very_ long time and your welcome to it, if that is your intent.

It is time to move on. Forgive and forget. _WE_ have _important_ work to do
folks. There are currently just 97 of us on CSGnet and probably 20 -30 who
actually care. That's it folks, 20 -30 in the WHOLE DARN WORLD. That doesn't
make for great odds, _ESPECIALLY_ when the 20 -30 are more concerned with
'obstreperous correspondents' and 'vituperation' then we all seem to be
about _CONTENT_ & _SUBSTANCE_.

So to all those who have been offended by my obstreperous correspondents and
vituperation, I APOLOGIZE. Now, lets all _GET OVER IT_, and lets _all_
move on and get to work.

Marc

I

2

[From Hank Folson (2004.08.29)]

Marc Abrams (2004.08.29.1258)

...But PCT _DOES NOT_ hold all the
answers. It is the _FOUNDATION_ of the _ALL_ social science.

So far so good.

But it _MUST_ be integrated with what is already known in these fields about
human behavior.

For example, 'Behaviorists' are not 'wrong'. They have noticed certain
aspects of human behavior for over a century. They just don't have the whole
picture...

..PCT needs to integrate itself with all existing theories that make
sense, _NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND_. Because we need to account for all the
behavior they do, and do a better job of explaining it.

How can you possibly "integrate" theories that state that organisms are responsive with perceptual control theory that states that organisms are purposive? They are opposites.

But before any of this can happen we need to know what we are dealing with.
We need to understand _HOW_ we actually can inform these other theories and
how they inform us. That is, what is the connection? These theories exist
because people have _ACTUALLY_ noticed some aspects of human behavior and
tried to account for it.

Unfortunately, Marc, humankind has a long, sad history of observing natural phenomena and coming to faulty conclusions.

It is time to move on. Forgive and forget. _WE_ have _important_ work to do
folks. There are currently just 97 of us on CSGnet and probably 20 -30 who
actually care. That's it folks, 20 -30 in the WHOLE DARN WORLD.

Well actually, Marc, there are about 6 billion control systems out there that are surviving nicely by doing what control systems do. And that's just counting the humans. :slight_smile:

Sincerely,
Hank Folson

3

From [Marc Abrams (2004.08.30.0303)]

[From Hank Folson (2004.08.29)]

How can you possibly "integrate" theories that state that organisms are
responsive with perceptual control theory that states that organisms are
purposive? They are opposites.

Never thought of that. Gee, I guess I'm really off base here. Thanks Hank.

Unfortunately, Marc, humankind has a long, sad history of observing
natural phenomena and coming to faulty conclusions.

I'm glad to see PCT continue in that fine tradition Hank. Bill P. might be
installing an elevator to go up and down the levels of his hierarchy.

Well actually, Marc, there are about 6 billion control systems out there
that are surviving nicely by doing what control systems do. And that's
just counting the humans. :slight_smile:

Right again Hank, and 5,999,999,905 could care less about PCT, actually make
that 5,999,999,906 now. Have a great day folks.

Marc

4

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.09.03 18:19 EDT)]

Hank Folson (2004.08.29)--

Marc Abrams (2004.08.29.1258)
>But it _MUST_ be integrated with what is already known in these fields about
>human behavior.
>
>For example, 'Behaviorists' are not 'wrong'. They have noticed certain
>aspects of human behavior for over a century. They just don't have the whole
>picture...

>..PCT needs to integrate itself with all existing theories that make
>sense, _NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND_.
How can you possibly "integrate" theories that state that organisms are
responsive with perceptual control theory that states that organisms are
purposive? They are opposites.

I think the answer is that they are complements, if behaviorist research
and results are properly understood.

I am only judging from second hand, I have no direct experience with the
research, but it has seemed to me from descriptions that conditioning,
reinforcement, etc. have to do with how reference values are set, and most
particularly with reorganization. Its practitioners see animals controlling
with changed references and conclude, with some justification, that their
interventions have changed the animals' behavior. Lacking a theory of the
behavior itself, that is as far as they can go.

On the other hand, there is very little PCT research on reorganization.

Marc Abrams (2004.08.29.1258)
>Because we need to account for all the
>behavior they do, and do a better job of explaining it.

One problem is low standards of acceptability in statistically-based
research. A successful simulation corresponds very closely to data about
individual performance. This high fidelity either gets lost in the slurry,
or, if it is noticed, may even be dismissed as not credible. But another
problem may stem from having accepted and even promoted an adversarial
stance. Would we do better by putting behaviorist research in its
complementary place and showing a constructive relationship? Not if they
want the whole pie ("the science of behavior"). Which is of course what
they might say of us.

In fact, we do not do a better job of explaining specific instances of
learning and reorganization. And if they understand their results as
effects on internal reference perceptions, with behavior then explained by
PCT, then they will no longer be entirely limited to weak statistical
correspondences.

I proposed this (again) to you, Bruce Abbott, at the July meeting. Then on
turning to express the idea to someone else you came back and asked me to
repeat it. I suspect it may be one of those insidious things that requires
a bit of a shift at a deep level. Is it making sense now?

         /Bruce Nevin

ยทยทยท

At 10:41 PM 8/29/2004 -0700, Hank Folson wrote: