from [ Marc Abrams (2003.05.13.1305) ]
[From Bill Powers (2003.05.13.0957 MDT)]
from an exchange with Rick;
[From Rick Marken (2003.05.12.2210)]
Rick:
>It looks to me like output computation theory (or "modern control theory"
if you like).
Me:
Nope. It's plain old Cog Sci.
Rick:
Cog Sci is the name of a discipline. Output computation theories (there are
several versions) are one class of theories within Cog Sci.
You state in this post;
Argyris clearly does have a theory (in my terms) about behavior: it is the
"Cog Sci" theory that we plan the actions we must take in order to achieve
goals or correct errors and then execute them.
Was Rick being nit-picky, accurate, or wrong, or are you being loose?
I think there's a great confusion going on around this word "theory."
By whom? I know what I mean by theory.
As I use the term, Argyris' Model I idea is not a theory; it's simply a
proposal
to the effect that people employ this set of four principles. That's a
fact
to be established by observation. If they do, they do; if they don't, they
don't. Unless I go out and check for myself, I'll just take Argyris's word
for it, or reserve judgement. But that's not what I think of as a theory.
To me, a theory is an _explanation_ of an observation.
Yes. That is why I consider his work a theory about human interactions, in
which he _uses_ a theory of behavior ( Cog Sci ) to explain those
observations ( interactions ) I believe his theory is accurate. I believe
the other theory he uses to explain his theory is wrong. He never tries to
explain the observations ( interactions ) other then to say it comes from
mental maps. This is _precisely_ why I feel we might be able to benefit from
his observations and he from us. He ( not him personally ) has observed over
5,000 people in a 25 year period. All with the aim of understanding intent
and how error (mistakes) shapes our interactions. Just as Rick see's no
connection, I see many connections to PCT. I will find out if my perceptions
are accurate or not. This question will not be settled over CSGnet.
What needs explaining about Model I and II is how a principle can influence
a person's
actions, and how a person can behave so as to be in accord with a
principle. You can't just look and see the answer to such a question. You
have to think up a model, work out its details, and test it against
samples
of behavior.
Yes. I agree and understand this. This of course being the view of a
theoritician.
To the theoretician, it doesn't matter whether people use one
set of principles or another;
Is this true of the researcher or practitioner? As a researcher, how do you
know what a "principle" is and how would you differentiate it from a
"system" concept if you did not have a pre-defined "set" of examples of each
to research?
any set will serve as an example,and the
model can be tested by seeing whether people behave in relationship to
those principles as the theory says they do.
This being true of course if the premise is true and the data used
accurately represents the data theorized.
If there's a difference
between the principle a person sees in his own behavior and the principle
he wants to follow, does he then alter some program or lower goal to make
the difference less? That's what HPCT says he would do.
Yes. This is as I see it.
HPCT doesn't care _what_ principles are involved.
You left out a word here. The HPCT [ theoritician ] doesn't care ... An HPCT
researcher _might_ be, and a practitioner, most definitely does.
Argyris clearly does have a theory (in my terms) about behavior: it is the
"Cog Sci" theory that we plan the actions we must take in order to achieve
goals or correct errors and then execute them. THIS is his "theory", as I
use the word.
No. I disagree. His theory is about _interactions_. He uses someone else's
behavioral theory to "explain" his "social theory".
This is the "computed output" or "plan-and-execute" model on
which Rick and I have commented. It has nothing to do with the set of four
principles that Argyris proposes; it would apply to any set of principles,
just as PCT would.
Ah! So here is the rub. I am interested in explaining the phenomena Argyris
has accumulated over the years. I think I can. Argyris's explanation of his
observations are inaccurate.
It simply isn't possible that the Cog Sci theory and PCT can both be
correct descriptions of how people work.
Who said they were? Not me. If you think so, please point me to the passages
that gave you this impression.
And it is only in certain limited circumstances that we plan at all before
acting.
Do you know what those "limited circumstances" might be? Have you tested for
them yet?
When you shave, you create
a perceived pattern of strokes in a roughly repeatable way that is
corrected and adjusted as you go -- what you actually do never repeats
twice, so how could you plan it?
It's your example, you tell me. What were you trying to demonstrate?, that
the phenomena of planning is an illusion?
Most of the time we correct errors when...
The key word here is most. I'm interested in what happens _not_ most of the
time. Can you explain that?
and as they arise, and have no way of predicting what disturbances will
occur, and therefore what actions we will take to oppose them. Imagine
trying to plan your steering actions before you start on a car trip, and
then simply "executing" them during the trip. It is not the movements that
would end up being "executed," but the driver.
No but I can certainly see myself planning a trip and what route to take and
when to stop for fuel and meals and what attractions I might want to see,
and then of course, adjusting for disturbances as they are encountered along
the way
I believe you'll find that the four principles are found in every single
person Argyris has studied simply because they are defined so as to fit
anything anybody does.
Actually this is not quite accurate. Argyris has been at this since the
early 50's. His first book was published in 1956. In 1974, he published with
Donald Schon _Theory in Practice_, which introduced his Model I concept and
the 4 principles. They have not changed over 5,000 people, and 27 years. A
pretty good track record.
There may be a deep reason for that -- the statement
that people try to achieve goals certainly has some deep implications in
PCT -- or there may be some heavy forced interpretation going on here, as
it does in Glasser's scheme where every single person can be proven to
have
the same five basic needs.
I'm sorry I missed something here. When was Glasser "proven" wrong? I don't
necessarily agree that those are the only five or if in fact those 5 are any
more or less important then any other 2-1,000 that might be uncovered. But
to say he is _wrong_, is to say that system level concepts don't exsist. or
intinsic variables don't exist. Again, he may be pedalling some half-truths
but don't hit him up on his "five basic needs".
Let's try to keep theories-as-explanations separate from
theories-as-proposed-observations. They're totally different things.
How would you like to talk about these things? It is clear what you don't
like. What would you like?, that is less clear to me.
Marc
