[From Rick Marken (940508.0945)]
Paul George (940804 1600) --
Having finished B:CP, I think it is a good piece of work.
To me, this is a bit like calling Newton's "Principia" a "good piece of
work". But I guess I have to agree with your basic assessment.
Too bad so much of it seems to be ignored in most of the research and the
discussions here, which seem focused on the 'worm's eye view' of PCT (1st &
2nd order control). Perhaps because the other concepts are deemed
'uninteresting'?
I think Avery Andrews (940805.1347) gave an EXCELLENT reply to this. In
particular, I like his observation that the "actual properties of even simple
closed-loop systems are often seriously misunderstood by people". I find it
amusing when people storm off to model the higher levels before they grasp
even the most basic concepts of PCT, such as the nature of control, the
control of perception, testing for controlled variables, etc. By ignoring
the basics, these people fail to see that a great deal of what might SEEM
like "higher level" behavior is just the side-effects of very simple
controlling (for example, consider the behavior of the simple control systems
in the CROWD program or of the interacting humans in Tom's experiments on
cooperation and conflict).
A large part of my initial impressions of weakness or oversimplicity in HPCT
was because you (particularly Rick & Tom) appeared to be saying more
elaborate stuctures were unneeded.
In PCT, we try to explain phenomena with as simple a model as possible. It
seems to me that one of the diseases of modern behavioral science is the
facination with complexity per se. I'll call it " complexity worship". It
seems that many behavioral scientists think a model is weak and/or
oversimplified if it is not complex (this is a big change from the scientific
goals of Newton and Einstein). These behavioral scientists seem to be
controlling for a high level of perceived complexity as a means of perceiving
themselves as understanding behavior.
The modern disease of "complexity worship" seems to stem from three problems
that are endemic to the behavioral sciences:
1) The first is an addition to the superficial; behavioral scientists are
fascinated (as we all are) by the visible side effects of controlling, which
can look quite complex.
2) The second is an addition to the verbal labels used to refer to
these side effects. Thus, if a collection of observable side effects is
called "optimal trajectory selection" it seems like one is dealing with
something a great deal more complex and "high level" than "pressing a bar".
Many PCT studies that had seemed simple and "low level" suddenly become
"important and relevant" when they are given names like "helping",
"cooperation", "conflict", "leadership", "learning", etc.
3) The third is an apparent aversion to experimental test and the
acceptance of incredibly poor data when such tests are performed. There seems
to be a growing interest in theory qua theory; there is very little testing
of such theories against data. And the theories that are developed are not
really attempts to account for real data; they are attempts to account for
verbal _descriptions_ of data. So we see people trying to come up with
theories of "path planning", "alerting", "intelligent search", etc. That is,
people are trying to draw diagrams that they imagine will produce the
kind of behavior that they imagine people would describe with these words.
People who enjoy PCT tend to be those who find that their understanding of
human nature is controlled by building working models (the simpler, the
better) that produce behavior that exactly duplicates real data. People who
enjoy PCT tend to be "phenomena freaks"; they are interested in understanding
a real phenomenon that is really interesting that they can really experience
in themselves and others - - CONTROL. People who enjoy PCT tend to enjoy
simple explanations (probably because we a simple minded) that are powerful
(they explain a LOT of data); basic PCT explains a LOT of data.
I don't think there is much that PCT can do for behavioral scientists who
suffer from the three addictions I listed about -- to the superficial, to
the verbal, to the theoretical (undisciplined by the phenomenal -- i.e.
data). But don't blame PCT for the fact that most of the behavioral science
community is clueless. PCT only seems to be "simple minded" if you approach
it from the perspective of clueless behavioral science.
In fact, the basic PCT model has a great deal to offer people interested in
high level, "real life" problems; the discussions at the recent CSG meeting
were evidence of that. Once you understand the basic PCT model (including the
notion of hierarchy and reorganization) you can cut through a lot of the
apparent complexity of behavior to see what people are actually doing
(controlling perceptions) and why they often have trouble doing what they
want (conflict).
In order to "sell" PCT to the "complexity worshippers" in the behavioral
sciences, we would have to make it seem like PCT gives them what they want --
descriptions of the superficial complexities of behavior, understanding
through verbalization and theoretical complexity for its own sake. I,
personally, would rather just stay in the "simple minded" PCT ghetto, with
simple-minded friends (like Tom, Bill and Avery) doing simple minded research
and publishing it in simple minded books like "Simple MINDed READINGS".
Simply,
Rick
observe in human