RM: my efforts have been rewarded by being pegged as an enemy of PCT.
Your efforts in doing research, with control theory as the basis, are certainly appreciated by me personally and I believe the CSGnet community.
What I don’t appreciate and what I think got you the label of enemy of PCT, are the mistakes in applying control theory to behavior analysis and insisting that they were not mistakes.
If you argue against mainstream approaches, but make mistakes, or if you argue against mainstream approaches without finding controlled variables, your research is, at best, irrelevant for PCT.
BP: They have been misled by the actions that organisms use for generating effects that are of importance to them into thinking that those actions are the effects of importance. Even now, and even on CSGnet, this error continues to be made
To reformulate: actions of a person or an animal are not the important measure in explaining and understanding behavior. Instead, the effects, or outcomes, from the point of view of the organisms, are important. The perceptions are important to the organism, and the controlled variables are important to the researcher.
If you take the SOR model, you will think that actions and their relationship to stimuli give you the organism function. That is the first part of 1978 behavioral illusion.
This doesn’t mean that actions themselves cannot tell you something important about the organism after you’ve found the controlled variables.
The basis for a revolution is changing the model from SOR to a feedback loop. Some people in the life sciences have started using or have been using feedback loops as their model of behavior for a long time. It is a slow revolution that is already happening if you look closer. They talk about controlled variables under different names, or even explicitly call controlled variables - controlled variables. Best to have an open mind and decide on a case-to-case basis, there is a lot of great science out there.