[[[[[[FROM CHUCK TUCKER 931129]]]]]]
ANNIE'S PROBLEMS (various post by Bruce, Rick and Ed)
I hope that we are not going to have an extended discussion
of the age old issue of how the world influences the human
being; I thought that we just settled on the fact that PCT's
epistemological assumption (assertion?) is that if the
world exists a human being can only know what its knows by
the operation of PIF. What can be said and still remains true
to that assumption is: the world is simply THERE.
I think the we will all agree that Annie's problems are of her
own making as are everyone's from the PCT view. But the issue
that seems to be lost in making this point (as we have done
about 24 times on this Net) is the matter of joint or shared
responsiblilty. Should we take any responsibility for telling
others that PCT is the most scientific, useful, has the support
of evidence, is revolutionary, is better than any other model of
human behavior and the like when they take it to heart and mind
and use it and its use makes their life with others problematic?
Or do we just say to them "You made that decision and I am in no
way responsible." If you say, "Yes, I share some responsibility"
then I would say that Annie's mother also shares that responsi-
bility. I don't think that this is an enormous ethical problem
but I do think that it is consistent with PCT in spite of its
apparent inconsistency. The simple "demo" is the rubber-band
exercise when I can get another's finger to "spell" a word (or
be in a circle, square, symbol) when I know that he/she is
controlling for keeping the "knot over the spot." I am, in part,
responsible for the location of the other's finger; a joint
responsibility (no pun intended).
FF DEMO
Bill was correct in his prediction that some "abstract" comments
might come forth if I posted my little class demo. But I did
not anticipate that I would have the "results" explained by 1)
genetic factors or talent [Malcolm] or 2) experimenter effects
[Hal]. I guess these excuses for "results" that a person does
not wish to believe are very difficult to eliminate. Well, I
must admit the I took both of them into account in my demo and
did so IN FAVOR of the FF hypothesis. Some of this I stated
explicitly and the rest was "implied" by the situation.
As I stated, a person volunteered that had good hand and eye
coordination from their own point of view (she was very confident
of this and no one challenged her). She practised the task
several times and was able to do it every time (100% success
rate) and (what I did not tell before) after each time she was
successful I told her "That is good."; "You done good." or a
word like "excellent" AND other members of the class made
similar statements (here are the positive reinforcers that Hal
and others like to see in all studies). You might add to this
that this was a performance in front of me (her esteemed and
beloved PROFESSOR who will give her a grade for this course
where class participation counts) and her peers whom she adores.
Speaking of group pressure! WOW But in spite of all of this
she was not able to draw two crossing lines so that the ends
would touch a circle. Obviously, I plan to flunk this no-talent
student even though she wants to graduate next month.
I consider this a demonstration which is designed to illustrate
some idea about human behavior. I was serious when I said that
you should try it and see what you observe. If you can find a
way for the results to be different I would like to know about it
and I hope that you will describe what you did better than I did.
By the way, I think that "talent" indicates something to be
explained rather that an explanation and that I think "experi-
menter effects" are part of every study and they can't be
eliminated or "controlled" but must be considered as part of
the evidence of the study (this is one of my complaints about
most of the research in the pseudoscientific social sciences).
QUESTIONS ON MILGRAM
I have to double check my information but I believe that there
are some answers to the questions about the Milgram studies. I
must point out that his research suffers from the same lack of
information about what was done as all other studies in the PSS.
A NOTE ON FEEDFORWARD
I have collected all 64 posts on the topic of feedforward and
have looked them over quite carefully. Some of these posts are
extremely useful for showing the intricate workings of PCT. As
Martin points out, some are "classic." But it seems to me that
what Hans claims that PCT does not explain apparent repeated OR
very fact action; most of this is of the "feedback in not fast
enough" variety. As has been pointed out, all the actions Hans
discusses involve feedback even though Hans is not "comfortable"
with the idea that the do. This weekend I found a way that this
could be tested. Hans can insert probes into his wrists and
ankles which could be hooked to a machine that he could build
which would randomly block the neurological transmission of
the major nerves for those appendages and then he could see if
he could still "walk-across-the-room-and-get-into-bed." If
feedback is not necessary he should have no problem at all.
Remember I take NO responsibilty if you try this experiment!
Regards, Chuck