B:CP Course CH. 16 Experimental Methods

[From Rick Marken (2013.08.21.1155)]

···

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM: These are questions that are relevant to the material in Chapter 16 of B:CP (on “Experimental Methods”). We can wait and try to answer them then or, in the spirit of John Kirkland’s interest in a more innovative approach to teaching the course, we could start discussing them right now; though if we do I think we should do it under a new subject head – the one I’m using for this post – which shows that this discussion addresses material covered in Ch. 16.

I believe the answers to your questions (as I understand them) are in Ch. 16. So I think a good way to continue this discussion (if you want to do it now rather than wait a few weeks) would be for you to read Ch. 16 and see if it does, indeed, answer your questions and, if not, explain what remains unanswered and why.

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

JK: Pg 78 para 2, I'd be interested in hearing how and by whom the proposed model been modified over the past 40 years.
RM:  I would say "no", I have not seen any research that requires a change in the model. But that's just my impression and as Kent demonstrated today I am not all knowing;-) Maybe others listening in can tell you about modifications they know of. I guess I would say that I don't know of any modifications that I have had to make in order to get the model to fit the data I've collected in my research.
HB: I would say "yes". Contrast it's with no doubt just Rick's impression. But I doubt that he doesn't know anything about possible modifications to PCT. I would say that problem is more in the question : "Why would scientist build a "theoretical construct" if not for trying to show with data and researches and testing how their "theoretical construct" is perfect, as it is probably in their minds. Why would they trouble themselves with proving that their model is not perfect.

RM: They would do it because that is how science is done. Every experimental test of the PCT model can be viewed as an attempt to see whether or not it is wrong.

HB :

The problem I see in science and in PCT is that results are mostly interpreted as scientists wants. How could you estimate that “experimental tests of the PCT model” are wrong, if theory is wrong in some parts ? With which knowledge do you “match” the results of tests ? Or on what bases you design tests?

[John Kirkland 20130822]

Here’s a suggestion Rick. Yeah, all right, G’day mate (with a kiwi twang).

From what I’ve observed over many years some students tend to keep their text books in pristine condition, others annotate them. I annotate quite heavily by jotting comments, remarks, contrarian examples, niggles, typos, drawing my own figures and diagrams, and so on. I suppose the aim is to invite the written text to come to my place. These annotations are edited and selected for submission to the group. I try to keep them friendly and short though this can result in a cryptic style.

I wonder then; could readers be invited to submit and share some of their chapter jottings? As I remarked previously it’s a pleasant surprise to find several of my own queries being addressed in subsequent chapters. And I’ve appreciated more direct replies from others as well, thanks.

In summary, invite readers’ comments and remarks for each chapter (possibly even headed as ‘niggles’) and you (and David) keep these on file until the entire book has been read. Simultaneously, keep on gathering ‘answers’ to the set chapter questions, just as readers are doing at the moment. Then, after chapter 16 review these comments/niggles systematically in the light of what’s been read. I’d probably even be prepared to report on my own discoveries of revealed answers.

Mull it over.

With kind regards
JohnK

···

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2013.08.21.1155)]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM: These are questions that are relevant to the material in Chapter 16 of B:CP (on “Experimental Methods”). We can wait and try to answer them then or, in the spirit of John Kirkland’s interest in a more innovative approach to teaching the course, we could start discussing them right now; though if we do I think we should do it under a new subject head – the one I’m using for this post – which shows that this discussion addresses material covered in Ch. 16.

I believe the answers to your questions (as I understand them) are in Ch. 16. So I think a good way to continue this discussion (if you want to do it now rather than wait a few weeks) would be for you to read Ch. 16 and see if it does, indeed, answer your questions and, if not, explain what remains unanswered and why.

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

JK: Pg 78 para 2, I'd be interested in hearing how and by whom the proposed model been modified over the past 40 years.
RM:  I would say "no", I have not seen any research that requires a change in the model. But that's just my impression and as Kent demonstrated today I am not all knowing;-) Maybe others listening in can tell you about modifications they know of. I guess I would say that I don't know of any modifications that I have had to make in order to get the model to fit the data I've collected in my research.
HB: I would say "yes". Contrast it's with no doubt just Rick's impression. But I doubt that he doesn't know anything about possible modifications to PCT. I would say that problem is more in the question : "Why would scientist build a "theoretical construct" if not for trying to show with data and researches and testing how their "theoretical construct" is perfect, as it is probably in their minds. Why would they trouble themselves with proving that their model is not perfect.

RM: They would do it because that is how science is done. Every experimental test of the PCT model can be viewed as an attempt to see whether or not it is wrong.

HB :

The problem I see in science and in PCT is that results are mostly interpreted as scientists wants. How could you estimate that “experimental tests of the PCT model” are wrong, if theory is wrong in some parts ? With which knowledge do you “match” the results of tests ? Or on what bases you design tests?

[From Rick Marken (2013.08.21.1840)]

···

John Kirkland (20130822)

JK: Here’s a suggestion Rick. Yeah, all right, G’day mate (with a kiwi twang).

RM: Ah, New Zealand. So the word (about PCT) has managed to get way over there!

From what I’ve observed over many years some students tend to keep their text books in pristine condition, others annotate them. I annotate quite heavily by jotting comments, remarks, contrarian examples, niggles, typos, drawing my own figures and diagrams, and so on. I suppose the aim is to invite the written text to come to my place. These annotations are edited and selected for submission to the group. I try to keep them friendly and short though this can result in a cryptic style.

I wonder then; could readers be invited to submit and share some of their chapter jottings? As I remarked previously it’s a pleasant surprise to find several of my own queries being addressed in subsequent chapters. And I’ve appreciated more direct replies from others as well, thanks.

In summary, invite readers’ comments and remarks for each chapter (possibly even headed as ‘niggles’) and you (and David) keep these on file until the entire book has been read. Simultaneously, keep on gathering ‘answers’ to the set chapter questions, just as readers are doing at the moment. Then, after chapter 16 review these comments/niggles systematically in the light of what’s been read. I’d probably even be prepared to report on my own discoveries of revealed answers.

Mull it over.

RM: Sounds great!! Though I don’t see why we can’t try to answer the niggles when they are posted; we can still save them. But I do think it’s a great idea, whatever happens.

So all of you “Students” out there who have “niggles”, please post them after as soon as you finish a chapter.

Best regards

Professor Marken

With kind regards
JohnK


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2013.08.21.1155)]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

RM: These are questions that are relevant to the material in Chapter 16 of B:CP (on “Experimental Methods”). We can wait and try to answer them then or, in the spirit of John Kirkland’s interest in a more innovative approach to teaching the course, we could start discussing them right now; though if we do I think we should do it under a new subject head – the one I’m using for this post – which shows that this discussion addresses material covered in Ch. 16.

I believe the answers to your questions (as I understand them) are in Ch. 16. So I think a good way to continue this discussion (if you want to do it now rather than wait a few weeks) would be for you to read Ch. 16 and see if it does, indeed, answer your questions and, if not, explain what remains unanswered and why.

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

JK: Pg 78 para 2, I'd be interested in hearing how and by whom the proposed model been modified over the past 40 years.
RM:  I would say "no", I have not seen any research that requires a change in the model. But that's just my impression and as Kent demonstrated today I am not all knowing;-) Maybe others listening in can tell you about modifications they know of. I guess I would say that I don't know of any modifications that I have had to make in order to get the model to fit the data I've collected in my research.
HB: I would say "yes". Contrast it's with no doubt just Rick's impression. But I doubt that he doesn't know anything about possible modifications to PCT. I would say that problem is more in the question : "Why would scientist build a "theoretical construct" if not for trying to show with data and researches and testing how their "theoretical construct" is perfect, as it is probably in their minds. Why would they trouble themselves with proving that their model is not perfect.

RM: They would do it because that is how science is done. Every experimental test of the PCT model can be viewed as an attempt to see whether or not it is wrong.

HB :

The problem I see in science and in PCT is that results are mostly interpreted as scientists wants. How could you estimate that “experimental tests of the PCT model” are wrong, if theory is wrong in some parts ? With which knowledge do you “match” the results of tests ? Or on what bases you design tests?

Hi Rick,

well I missinterpretated you good will for dialogue. The main problem still stays. You are extracting from our conversation the parts you want to discuss about and thus direct the conversation into your “waters”. And that’s what I’m talking about. You are all the time giving “mostly your interpretation of the discussion”, that you want. As you interpret the experimental results of your tests as you want…It’s the “used way of thinking” and of course limitation with individualy controlled perceptions.

The main question was :
JK:

Pg 78 para 2, I’d be interested in hearing how and by whom the proposed model been modified over the past 40 years.

HB :

The proposed model was probably not modified over the past 40 years, because Bill as the author did “control” that, although there were attempts and propositions to modify it, speccialy on “12. level” of hierarchy. Maybe some older members of the CSGnet could say more about it. If I remember right Kent proposed the title PCT. I’m not sure.

And the proposal for modification of PCT was given by Rick…

RM earlier :

By the way, I’m sure there will be a need to modify some aspects of the theory described in B:CP, particularly the nature of the hierarchy of control and the nature of the learning process. Indeed, that’s what research in PCT should be about, I think: getting a better picture of the relationship between control systems in behavior (for example, research may show that the relationship between control systems is not even strictly hierarchical, as Martin has pointed out).

HB :

I hope I managed to present the problem of individual interpretations which “perceptually narrow mind” can give and thus limit conversation to own “controlled perceptions”. I think that all people are somehow catched in their own controlled perceptual worlds. That’s probably how the difference beetwen “open” and “narrow” mind can be presented

I deliberatelly isolated the parts of discussion that suits me. Usually this is the way how I see a difference between bad, good, better and the best dialogue. I always tried to answer on your all discourse Rick, but you always isolate the parts which you want and of course in this way “control” the whole discussion to your “controlled perceptual world”. In this way I doubt that PCT will do any progress.

I’m sorry John if you didin’t get the wanted answer. I tried my best…:slight_smile:

Boris

···

----- Original Message -----

From:
Richard Marken

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:54 PM

Subject: B:CP Course CH. 16 Experimental Methods

[From Rick Marken (2013.08.21.1155)]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

    JK: Pg 78 para 2, I'd be interested in hearing how and by whom the proposed model been modified over the past 40 years.
    RM:  I would say "no", I have not seen any research that requires a change in the model. But that's just my impression and as Kent demonstrated today I am not all knowing;-) Maybe others listening in can tell you about modifications they know of. I guess I would say that I don't know of any modifications that I have had to make in order to get the model to fit the data I've collected in my research.
    HB: I would say "yes". Contrast it's with no doubt just Rick's impression. But I doubt that he doesn't know anything about possible modifications to PCT. I would say that problem is more in the question : "Why would scientist build a "theoretical construct" if not for trying to show with data and researches and testing how their "theoretical construct" is perfect, as it is probably in their minds. Why would they trouble themselves with proving that their model is not perfect.
  RM: They would do it because that is how science is done. Every experimental test of the PCT model can be viewed as an attempt to see whether or not it is wrong.

HB :

  The problem I see in science and in PCT is that results are mostly interpreted as scientists wants. How could you estimate that "experimental tests of the PCT model" are wrong, if theory is wrong in some parts ? With which knowledge do you "match" the results of tests ? Or on what bases you design tests?

RM: These are questions that are relevant to the material in Chapter 16 of B:CP (on “Experimental Methods”). We can wait and try to answer them then or, in the spirit of John Kirkland’s interest in a more innovative approach to teaching the course, we could start discussing them right now; though if we do I think we should do it under a new subject head – the one I’m using for this post – which shows that this discussion addresses material covered in Ch. 16.

I believe the answers to your questions (as I understand them) are in Ch. 16. So I think a good way to continue this discussion (if you want to do it now rather than wait a few weeks) would be for you to read Ch. 16 and see if it does, indeed, answer your questions and, if not, explain what remains unanswered and why.

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Rick Marken (2013.08.22.0930)]

···

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Rick,

BH: well I missinterpretated you good will for dialogue. The main problem still stays. You are extracting from our conversation the parts you want to discuss about and thus direct the conversation into your “waters”. And that’s what I’m talking about. You are all the time giving “mostly your interpretation of the discussion”, that you want.

RM: Aren’t you doing the same? Giving your interpretation of the discussion, the one you want. As an expert in PCT you must know that people can only control for what they themselves want, since their control systems are only inside themselves.

BH: As you interpret the experimental results of your tests as you want…It’s the “used way of thinking” and of course limitation with individualy controlled perceptions.

RM: The way I want to interpret the results of my experimental tests is based on my understanding of how to do it as described in CH. 16 of B:CP – which is the topic of this thread, Experimental Methods. Indeed, I have a new paper that just came out that describes what I believe is the basic approach to interpreting experimental results as described in that chapter (using the Test for the Controlled Variable). If you or anyone else would like a copy of that paper (I think it’s my best so far) send a re-print request to my personal email: rsmarken@gmail.com. The title of the paper is “Making Inferences about Intention: Perceptual Control Theory as a “Theory of Mind” for Psychologists”. I’ll probably announce it in a separate post as well.

RM: The main question was :
JK: Pg 78 para 2, I’d be interested in hearing how and by whom the proposed model been modified over the past 40 years.

HB : The proposed model was probably not modified over the past 40 years, because Bill as the author did “control” that, although there were attempts and propositions to modify it, speccialy on “12. level” of hierarchy. Maybe some older members of the CSGnet could say more about it. If I remember right Kent proposed the title PCT. I’m not sure.

And the proposal for modification of PCT was given by Rick…

RM earlier :

By the way, I’m sure there will be a need to modify some aspects of the theory described in B:CP, particularly the nature of the hierarchy of control and the nature of the learning process. Indeed, that’s what research in PCT should be about, I think: getting a better picture of the relationship between control systems in behavior (for example, research may show that the relationship between control systems is not even strictly hierarchical, as Martin has pointed out).

HB : I hope I managed to present the problem of individual interpretations which “perceptually narrow mind” can give and thus limit conversation to own “controlled perceptions”. I think that all people are somehow catched in their own controlled perceptual worlds. That’s probably how the difference beetwen “open” and “narrow” mind can be presented

RM: I’m sorry, I really don’t understand what your problem is here. I’m sure you have a problem (there seems to be a discrepancy between what you are perceiving (about my discussion) and what you want to perceive about it. But I really don’t know what it is you want to perceive. You say that you find what I say “perceptually narrow minded”. I think if you could give an example of something I said that was “perceptually narrow minded” and then describe what you would have liked to have seen me say instead, that would not have been “perceptually narrow minded” that would help.

BH: I deliberatelly isolated the parts of discussion that suits me. Usually this is the way how I see a difference between bad, good, better and the best dialogue. I always tried to answer on your all discourse Rick, but you always isolate the parts which you want and of course in this way “control” the whole discussion to your “controlled perceptual world”. In this way I doubt that PCT will do any progress.

RM: Well, I am a control system, after all. But I’m really trying to give what I think are valid answers to your questions. But, again, perhaps if you said what you would like me to have said I could get a better idea of what you problem is. This is really just a complicated way of asking “What do you want”?

Best regards

Rick

I’m sorry John if you didin’t get the wanted answer. I tried my best…:slight_smile:

Boris


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

Hi Rick,

It’s nice that you noticed that we could work on the principles of HPCT.

And answer on your question was just below…

RM :

… “What do you want”?

HB :

I’m sorry John if you didin’t get the wanted answer. I tried my best…:slight_smile:

Do you need any explanation ?

Best,

Boris

···

----- Original Message -----

From:
Richard Marken

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:28 PM

Subject: Re: B:CP Course CH. 16 Experimental Methods

[From Rick Marken (2013.08.22.0930)]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Rick,

BH: well I missinterpretated you good will for dialogue. The main problem still stays. You are extracting from our conversation the parts you want to discuss about and thus direct the conversation into your "waters". And that's what I'm talking about. You are all the time giving "    mostly your interpretation of the discussion", that you want.

RM: Aren’t you doing the same? Giving your interpretation of the discussion, the one you want. As an expert in PCT you must know that people can only control for what they themselves want, since their control systems are only inside themselves.

BH: As you interpret the experimental results of your tests as you want...It's the "used way of thinking" and of course limitation with individualy controlled perceptions. 

RM: The way I want to interpret the results of my experimental tests is based on my understanding of how to do it as described in CH. 16 of B:CP – which is the topic of this thread, Experimental Methods. Indeed, I have a new paper that just came out that describes what I believe is the basic approach to interpreting experimental results as described in that chapter (using the Test for the Controlled Variable). If you or anyone else would like a copy of that paper (I think it’s my best so far) send a re-print request to my personal email: rsmarken@gmail.com . The title of the paper is “Making Inferences about Intention: Perceptual Control Theory as a “Theory of Mind” for Psychologists”. I’ll probably announce it in a separate post as well.

RM: The main question was :
JK: Pg 78 para 2, I’d be interested in hearing how and by whom the proposed model been modified over the past 40 years.

HB : The proposed model was probably not modified over the past 40 years, because Bill as the author did "control" that, although there were attempts and propositions to modify it, speccialy on "12. level" of hierarchy. Maybe some older members of the CSGnet could say more about it. If I remember right Kent proposed the title PCT. I'm not sure.

And the proposal for modification of PCT was given by Rick…

RM earlier :

By the way, I'm sure there will be a need to modify some aspects of the theory described in B:CP, particularly the nature of the hierarchy of control and the nature of the learning process. Indeed, that's what research in PCT should be about, I think: getting a better picture of the relationship between control systems in behavior (for example, research may show that the relationship between control systems is not even strictly hierarchical, as Martin has pointed out).
HB : I hope I managed to present the problem of individual interpretations which "perceptually narrow mind" can give and thus limit conversation to own "controlled perceptions". I think that all people are somehow catched in their own controlled perceptual worlds. That's probably how the difference beetwen "open" and "narrow" mind can be presented

RM: I’m sorry, I really don’t understand what your problem is here. I’m sure you have a problem (there seems to be a discrepancy between what you are perceiving (about my discussion) and what you want to perceive about it. But I really don’t know what it is you want to perceive. You say that you find what I say “perceptually narrow minded”. I think if you could give an example of something I said that was “perceptually narrow minded” and then describe what you would have liked to have seen me say instead, that would not have been “perceptually narrow minded” that would help.

BH:  I deliberatelly isolated the parts of discussion that suits me. Usually this is the way how I see a difference between bad, good, better and the best dialogue. I always tried to answer on your all  discourse Rick, but you always isolate the parts which you want and of course in this way "control" the whole discussion to your "controlled perceptual world". In this way I doubt that PCT will do any progress.

RM: Well, I am a control system, after all. But I’m really trying to give what I think are valid answers to your questions. But, again, perhaps if you said what you would like me to have said I could get a better idea of what you problem is. This is really just a complicated way of asking “What do you want”?

Best regards

Rick

I'm sorry John if you didin't get the wanted answer. I tried my best...:)

Boris


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Rick Marken (2013.08.23.0800)]

···

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Rick,

It’s nice that you noticed that we could work on the principles of HPCT.

And answer on your question was just below…

RM :

… “What do you want”?

HB :

I’m sorry John if you didin’t get the wanted answer. I tried my best…:slight_smile:

Do you need any explanation ?

RM: Yes, if you would like me to try to tell you what you want to know.

Best

Rick

[From Rick Marken (2013.08.22.0930)]


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Rick,

BH: well I missinterpretated you good will for dialogue. The main problem still stays. You are extracting from our conversation the parts you want to discuss about and thus direct the conversation into your "waters". And that's what I'm talking about. You are all the time giving "    mostly your interpretation of the discussion", that you want.

RM: Aren’t you doing the same? Giving your interpretation of the discussion, the one you want. As an expert in PCT you must know that people can only control for what they themselves want, since their control systems are only inside themselves.

BH: As you interpret the experimental results of your tests as you want...It's the "used way of thinking" and of course limitation with individualy controlled perceptions. 

RM: The way I want to interpret the results of my experimental tests is based on my understanding of how to do it as described in CH. 16 of B:CP – which is the topic of this thread, Experimental Methods. Indeed, I have a new paper that just came out that describes what I believe is the basic approach to interpreting experimental results as described in that chapter (using the Test for the Controlled Variable). If you or anyone else would like a copy of that paper (I think it’s my best so far) send a re-print request to my personal email: rsmarken@gmail.com . The title of the paper is “Making Inferences about Intention: Perceptual Control Theory as a “Theory of Mind” for Psychologists”. I’ll probably announce it in a separate post as well.

RM: The main question was :
JK: Pg 78 para 2, I’d be interested in hearing how and by whom the proposed model been modified over the past 40 years.

HB : The proposed model was probably not modified over the past 40 years, because Bill as the author did "control" that, although there were attempts and propositions to modify it, speccialy on "12. level" of hierarchy. Maybe some older members of the CSGnet could say more about it. If I remember right Kent proposed the title PCT. I'm not sure.

And the proposal for modification of PCT was given by Rick…

RM earlier :

By the way, I'm sure there will be a need to modify some aspects of the theory described in B:CP, particularly the nature of the hierarchy of control and the nature of the learning process. Indeed, that's what research in PCT should be about, I think: getting a better picture of the relationship between control systems in behavior (for example, research may show that the relationship between control systems is not even strictly hierarchical, as Martin has pointed out).
HB : I hope I managed to present the problem of individual interpretations which "perceptually narrow mind" can give and thus limit conversation to own "controlled perceptions". I think that all people are somehow catched in their own controlled perceptual worlds. That's probably how the difference beetwen "open" and "narrow" mind can be presented

RM: I’m sorry, I really don’t understand what your problem is here. I’m sure you have a problem (there seems to be a discrepancy between what you are perceiving (about my discussion) and what you want to perceive about it. But I really don’t know what it is you want to perceive. You say that you find what I say “perceptually narrow minded”. I think if you could give an example of something I said that was “perceptually narrow minded” and then describe what you would have liked to have seen me say instead, that would not have been “perceptually narrow minded” that would help.

BH:  I deliberatelly isolated the parts of discussion that suits me. Usually this is the way how I see a difference between bad, good, better and the best dialogue. I always tried to answer on your all  discourse Rick, but you always isolate the parts which you want and of course in this way "control" the whole discussion to your "controlled perceptual world". In this way I doubt that PCT will do any progress.

RM: Well, I am a control system, after all. But I’m really trying to give what I think are valid answers to your questions. But, again, perhaps if you said what you would like me to have said I could get a better idea of what you problem is. This is really just a complicated way of asking “What do you want”?

Best regards

Rick

I'm sorry John if you didin't get the wanted answer. I tried my best...:)

Boris


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com