Behaviorism and PCT (was Re: Likes and Goals)

CSGnet Archive CSG2003
1

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.31.1255)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.30.2235) --

Why won't [behaviorism] go away? Because it 'works'. Most people
actually don't care why things happen the way they actually do,
they are only interested in a story that _seems_ to work and
places the blame on anything or anyone but themselves, (i.e. it's
something out there) they are content with just-so stories.

I agree that behaviorism persists, in part, because it seems to work. But
PCT persists for the same reason. Both seem to work because they account for
data. I believe PCT works better than behaviorism because 1) it accounts for
data that cannot be handled by behaviorist (cause-effect) models (such as
data showing that agents can produce a consistent, predetermined result in
the face of unpredictable and undetectable disturbances) and 2) it accounts
for the data with far greater precision than do the behaviorist models.
Behaviorism will go away, I think, once we show clearly that PCT works
better than cause-effect as a model of behavior.

I don't think people's desire to shirk responsibility for their actions has
much to do with the persistence of behaviorism, by the way. People shirk
responsibility for their actions using PCT just as well as they do it using
behaviorism. People don't seem to need fancy theories of behavior to help
them shirk responsibility. In fact, they don't need any theory at all. All
they need is some facility with hypocrisy. I've found that some of the best
shirker's of responsibility for their own actions are people who argue the
most persistently about the importance of people taking responsibility for
their own actions.

Ultimately, I think behaviorism (and its more modern incarnation as
cognitive science) persists because it is at the heart of the research
infrastructure of all the life sciences. That is, behaviorism, in the form
of the cause-effect model, is at the heart of the life science research
process. I don't think the control of input view of behavior will make any
significant inroads in the life sciences until there are textbooks that
explain how to study the behavior of living control systems and researchers
who are studying living control systems using these methods. The problem,
of course, is that there is no market for either the books or the
researchers.

What I think we need, in order to triumph over behaviorism, is some lunatic
who will write a research methods textbook for which there is no market, a
book that will show researchers how to do the kind of research on living
control systems in which those same researchers have no interest. Now that
I mention it, I think my business acumen combined with my understanding of
control system research uniquely qualifies me to be that lunatic. I think I
now know what I'll be working on in 2004.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

2

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.31.1605)]

Rick Marken (2003.12.31.1255)

I don't think people's desire to shirk responsibility for their
actions has
much to do with the persistence of behaviorism, by the way. People
shirk
responsibility for their actions using PCT just as well as they do it
using
behaviorism. People don't seem to need fancy theories of behavior to
help
them shirk responsibility. In fact, they don't need any theory at all.
All
they need is some facility with hypocrisy. I've found that some of the
best
shirker's of responsibility for their own actions are people who argue
the
most persistently about the importance of people taking responsibility
for
their own actions.

Nice post, Rick. (I'm getting an early start on 2004.)

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

3

[From Rick Marken (2003.12 31.1315)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.12.31.1605)--

Rick Marken (2003.12.31.1255)

I've found that some of the best shirker's of
responsibility for their own actions are people
who argue the most persistently about the importance
of people taking responsibility for their own actions.

Nice post, Rick. (I'm getting an early start on 2004.)

Thanks. Makes me glad that 2004 will be an extra long year.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

4

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.31.1619)]

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.31.1255)]

I agree that behaviorism persists, in part, because it seems to work. But
PCT persists for the same reason. Both seem to work because they account

for

data. I believe PCT works better than behaviorism because 1) it accounts

for

data that cannot be handled by behaviorist (cause-effect) models (such as
data showing that agents can produce a consistent, predetermined result in
the face of unpredictable and undetectable disturbances) and 2) it

accounts

for the data with far greater precision than do the behaviorist models.
Behaviorism will go away, I think, once we show clearly that PCT works
better than cause-effect as a model of behavior.

Rick, you missed my main point. Behaviorism was successful becuase it
explicitly said that whatever processes took place between the input and the
output of a system was irrelevant and 'unscientific'.

I don't think people's desire to shirk responsibility for their actions

has

much to do with the persistence of behaviorism, by the way.

It's not a matter of shirking responsibilities. It's a matter of
_observable_ cause and effect. Remember that whatever takes place between
input and output is irrelevent according to behaviorism.

Ultimately, I think behaviorism (and its more modern incarnation as
cognitive science)

Sorry Rick, Cog Sci is _NOT_ behaviorism. Not even close. In fact radical
Cog Sci takes the opposite position of behaviorists. They insist that
everything that exists outside the organism is irrelevant. Of course, most
people are no longer radical with either theory. Most take some middle
ground which is the reason it is so difficult to talk PCT with them, they
think they already know it.

persists because it is at the heart of the research
infrastructure of all the life sciences. That is, behaviorism, in the form
of the cause-effect model, is at the heart of the life science research
process.

Yep.

I don't think the control of input view of behavior will make any
significant inroads in the life sciences until there are textbooks that
explain how to study the behavior of living control systems and

researchers

who are studying living control systems using these methods. The problem,
of course, is that there is no market for either the books or the
researchers.

I agree. It's unfortunate that all the work that _is_ being done with
negative feedback is being done with the focus on the systems ouput and
exteranl reference conditions.

What I think we need, in order to triumph over behaviorism, is some

lunatic

who will write a research methods textbook for which there is no market, a
book that will show researchers how to do the kind of research on living
control systems in which those same researchers have no interest. Now

that

I mention it, I think my business acumen combined with my understanding of
control system research uniquely qualifies me to be that lunatic. I think

I

now know what I'll be working on in 2004.

I think you are on to something here. I hope you're serious, but I wouldn't
waste my time in the field of psychology. Try physiology. That field is
primed and ready for this.

Marc

5

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.31.1445)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.31.1619)--

Rick Marken (2003.12.31.1255)]

I agree that behaviorism persists, in part, because it seems to work.

Rick, you missed my main point. Behaviorism was successful becuase it
explicitly said that whatever processes took place between the input and the
output of a system was irrelevant and 'unscientific'.

I didn't think that's what you meant by "behavioris," because that kind of
behaviorism -- the "radical" behaviorism of Watson and Skinner - really
hasn't persisted into the present. There are a few radical behaviorists
around but mainstream psychology is now thoroughly dominated by some version
of what I would call cognitivism. When you said that behaviorism persisted I
thought you meant the S-R or cause-effect model of behavior, which is what I
think of when I hear the term "behaviorism". The S-R model of behavior has
persisted, I think, and it is used by all psychologists, even by some who
call themselves "control theorists".

Sorry Rick, Cog Sci is _NOT_ behaviorism. Not even close.

True, it's not radical behaviorism. But it is the S-R or cause-effect model
of behavior.

What I think we need, in order to triumph over behaviorism, is some
lunatic who will write a research methods textbook for which there
is no market

I think you are on to something here. I hope you're serious, but I wouldn't
waste my time in the field of psychology. Try physiology. That field is
primed and ready for this.

That may be. But there are several reasons why I can't be the one to write
about the study of physiological control, not the least of which being that
I don't know much about physiology (though I did get an A in it as an
undergrad). I am also not nearly as interested in, say, controlling glucose
as I am in catching fly balls or balancing brooms. I think the methods I
describe in the book would be relevant to the study of the control of any
variable by any kind of system, living or artificial. But the only book I
could possibly write would be one on control of the variables involved in
everyday behavior.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

6

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.31.1826)]

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.31.1445)]

But the only book I
could possibly write would be one on control of the variables involved
in
everyday behavior.

Put me on the list of early adopters.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

7

Phil Runkel replying to Rick Marken's of 12:59:09:

I am delighted to learn that you are thinking seriously of writing a
text on PCT method. I hope you maintain that resolution. If I can help
in some way, please tell me. --Phil R.