Assuming the Posture

[From RIck Marken (950131.2115)]

Tom Bourbon (950130.1510) --

the second article [by Rosenbaum et al] is one all PCT people should
read, especially if you are a PCT person who says the "hard core" isn't
fair to traditional scientists.

As a member of the "hard core" (and if I'm not I want to join) I want
to personally thank Tom for finding and reviewing this article for us.
This article appeared in _Psychological Review_, the premier publication
of scientific psychology, in 1995. If anyone thinks there is even the
slightest movememt of the psychological zeitgeist toward PCT I think that
this article (along with the one I found by Staddon) puts the kabash on
that idea.

It's not like we're keeping this PCT thing a secret, folks. Indeed,
Rosenbaum has read and favorably reviewed some of my work. And
Staddon was in contact with Powers for some time.

No, I think it should be clear to everyone by now that traditional
psychologists are ACTIVELY -- purposefully-- avoiding PCT. Clearly
they are controlling for something (like their careers) and PCT is
nothing but a disturbance. It's hard to build bridges to people who are
busy heaving your side back into the river;-)

Tom makes some wonderful observations about this paper. Perhaps
they are the kinds of things that only a PCT nerd could get excited
about but, as a PCT nerd myself, I thought they were "neat". For
example, the authors say:

"The aim of the theory under development is to solve the inverse
kinematics problem."

Tom observes, wryly:

The aim of their theory is to solve a problem that does not exist for
living systems. Interesting.

The authors go on:

"The inverse kinematics problem is an instance of the broader degrees
of freedom problem, first articulated by Bernstein (1967)."

And Tom notes:

And it is also an instance of the mistaken direction of most resarch on
human movement. The "inverse kinematics problem" is not a
problem for perceptual control systems, as is clearly shown by the the
Little Man/Arm model.

Tom then shows that the model proposed in the paper is, you guessed

a "lineal" model -- cause and effect operating in a straight line
from input to intended position as output.

Tom's grand finale is worth a reprise:

The authors are supported by three (3) grants from NSF; a U. of Mass.
faculty grant; a Research Scientist Development award from NIMH; a
grant from the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research; a grant
from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Science; and a Hamilton
College Faculty Research Grant. The people and institutions in their
list of "thanks" looks like something from "Lifestyles of the
Scientifically Rich and Famous." And here we are, a bunch of
scientific misfits on a ghetto PCT network. Now I understand!

Yes. PCT researchers have no money; proof positive that PCT is wrong.