Annie's problems; FF demo; Milgram Questions; Feedforward

[[[[[[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).


         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.


         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