Beyond the Fringe (was An Opportunity for PCT PR)

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.05.16.1810)]

Martin Taylor (2010.05.15.17.23)

Rick Marken (2010.05.15.1200)–

What was it that made it look “fringy” to you and them, do you think?
I refer you to my last message (on which you are commenting). Read the page
as of the last edit before mine, and imagine yourself having never read
anything about PCT before that. Could you imagine that this is serious
science? I think not.
Well I think so. But comparing what you wrote to the existing text I have developed a hypothesis about what makes you (and others) think the existing text makes PCT look “fringy”. Indeed, you state it yourself after asking me to compare your addition to the existing text:
Which one is more likely to suggest to a naive reader that PCT has more
going for it than a set of postulates designed to show opposition to what
the reader might already believe?

The only part of the existing text which says anything that shows opposition to what
the reader might already believe is the following:
“In contrast with other theories of psychology and behavior, which assume that behavior is a function of perception — that perceptual inputs determine or cause behavior — PCT postulates that an organism’s behavior is a means of controlling its perceptions.”
This statement strikes me as being clear, precise and interesting. You make a similar statement in your addition:
"Perceptual control theory (PCT) … follows a tradition…that emphasizes the fact that behaviour
is purposeful rather than “reactionary”.
This statement strikes me as being far less clear, precise and interesting than the one in the existing text. And since it doesn’t explain the difference between purposeful and “reactionary” behavior, it would be easy for a reader to assume that PCT is just a form of cognitive theory, which also talks about behavior being purposeful and goal driven. Indeed, the idea that behavior is purposeful and goal driven is a prominent them of Pinker’s “How the Mind Works”. So when you say that PCT “emphasizes” that behavior is purposeful you are not saying anything with which most psychologists would take issue.
This leads me to my hypothesis about what makes PCT, as properly described in the existing text, seem “fringy” to you and others. I hypothesize that what makes PCT seem fringy are descriptions of PCT that make it clear that it is truly revolutionary, in the sense that, if the theory is correct, then, as Bill Powers said in the Forward to Mind Readings “a whole segment of scientific literature needs to be deposited in the wastebasket”. I think you want to see PCT presented a “hot” – but not too revolutionary – theory, like those that come along every few years in psychology; cognitive dissonance theory, reinforcement theory, cognitive theory, neural network theory, action research theory, etc.

If, indeed, pointing out the revolutionary nature of PCT is what you think makes PCT seem “fringy” then I completely agree with you. People who offer up “revolutionary” theories are, more often than not, either hucksters or screwballs. But sometimes they’re actually courageous geniuses (like Wegener and Mendel). Based on my research I would have to put Powers in the genius class. PCT, I’m afraid, is the real revolutionary deal.

It is possible to describe PCT in a way that makes it appear non-revolutionary – non-fringy. But the problem with that is then people think that’s what PCT is about and you get Carver-Scheier PCT. In other words, you don’t get PCT.

So I vote for putting an accurate description of PCT in the wiki, clearly pointing out how it differs from other theories of behavior. If it seems fringy to people then we’ll know that they are getting the point.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

[Richard_H_Pfau]

From [Richard Pfau (2010.05.16.2250 DST)] regarding Rick Marken (2010.05.16.1810):

I noticed two things a week or two ago when reading the Wikipedia PCT discussion section of Control Theory that apparently helped reviewers to think that PCT was possibly a fringe theory: (1) that Bill was (and still is) described as an "unaffiliated" scientist (which was a red flag that made at least one reader suspicious of Bill's qualifications as a serious theory developer), and (2) that no indications were given that PCT had been tested or was testable/falsifiable as a theory.

Either simply deleting the term "unaffiliated" from in front of Bill's name or indicating an affiliation for Bill (either past or present) would seemingly take care of the first concern, for future readers at least. Judging from recent postings on CSGNet, the second concern of "testability" is being dealt with.

With Regards,
Richard Pfau

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2010.05.17.00.37]
[From Rick Marken (2010.05.16.1810)]

> Martin Taylor (2010.05.15.17.23)

I think you want to see PCT presented a "hot" -- but not too revolutionary -- theory, like those that come along every few years in psychology; cognitive dissonance theory, reinforcement theory, cognitive theory, neural network theory, action research theory, etc.

No, I don't want it to be presented as "hot", because it isn't. I want it to be seen as inevitable. As for whether it is seen as revolutionary, I don't care one way or the other. When someone comes to understand it, that's the time for them to judge whether they think it revolutionary or not.

I'm afraid I care more about PCT being understood and accepted than I care about it being seen as revolutionary. I just don't go in much for flag waving. Sorry, but I do not like manning barricades. I prefer to open doors.

So I vote for putting an accurate description of PCT in the wiki, clearly pointing out how it differs from other theories of behavior. If it seems fringy to people then we'll know that they are getting the point.

Not at all. If it seems fringy, we will know they are NOT getting the point, because PCT isn't in the least fringy. It is a part of normal science.

Remember that Wegener's ideas were originally accepted, then set asided because nobody could figure out a mechanism for continental drift. They weren't rejected initially. It was only when the mirror-matching magnetic stripes either side of the mid-Atlantic ridge were discovered that people began to believe that continents really could drift over a viscous mantle.

What PCT offers is a secure foundation for thinking about many different kinds of problem. The fact that no such foundation has hitherto been available may be seen as revolutionary, but to tell people it is cannot be useful in getting them to see for themselves.

I vote for putting an accurate description of PCT in Wikipedia, but not for emphasising the contrast with other conventional ways of thinking, though there may be points where a distinction might be pointed out. I vote for drawing people in, rather than telling them that everything they believe is wrong. They'll work that out for themselves if drawn in subtly enough and accurately enough. I guess I see myself somewhat as a Blake to your Robespierre. Robespierre got more press, but Blake was right.

Martin

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2010.05.17.10.12]

[Martin Taylor 2010.05.17.00.37]
[From Rick Marken (2010.05.16.1810)]

> Martin Taylor (2010.05.15.17.23)

I think you want to see PCT presented a "hot" -- but not too revolutionary -- theory, like those that come along every few years in psychology; cognitive dissonance theory, reinforcement theory, cognitive theory, neural network theory, action research theory, etc.

  I guess I see myself somewhat as a Blake to your Robespierre. Robespierre got more press, but Blake was right.

Brain fart! Of course I meant Burke, not Blake. Burke believed in the ideals of the French revolution, but not in its extremist development, the Terror instigated by purists such as Robespierre. Over the years, the purist "revolutionary" approach on CSGnet has driven away from PCT (or at least from CSGnet) many who could have become major contributors. Maybe you think they were impure and unworthy of access to the holy truth, but I don't accept that concept. It's time to stop.

Martin

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.05.17.0915)]

Martin Taylor (2010.05.17.00.37) –

As for whether [PCT] is seen as revolutionary, I don’t care one way or the other.

I
don’t think this is actually true. You seem to be quite opposed to PCT being seen as revolutionary. Just look at how you end this and your next
post. You compare me to Robespierre, for chrissakes.

Martin Taylor (2010.05.17.10.12)–

Over the years, the purist “revolutionary” approach on CSGnet has driven away from PCT (or at least from CSGnet) many who could have become major contributors.
Maybe you think they were impure and unworthy of access to the holy truth, but I don’t accept that concept. It’s time to stop.

Well, I’m afraid I am not going to stop because my main interest in PCT (since 1979, when I did my first research studies on PCT) has been it’s implications for psychological research, which are truly revolutionary. PCT shows that the causal model
that is the basis of all psychological research is wrong. That’s revolutionary, whether you want it to be or not. The PCT revolution is carried out with data and models. I think you miss this point completely
(and rather rudely dismiss my work in PCT) when you compare it to the French revolution, where the revolutionary idea was argued with violence
rather than science.

As far as my purist “revolutionary” approach “driving people off who could have become major contributors”, I
don’t know who you might mean. It seems to me that the only people who have left PCT are people who drove themselves off when they didn’t like hearing (and being shown) that they were wrong. I have seen this happen both on and off CSGNet, with the news people didn’t want to hear coming more often than not from Bill Powers rather than me.

When I get a
chance I will re-edit the PCT Wiki entry. I think Bill made some good changes. I think there could be some more that would help. I agree with
Richard Pfau (2010.05.16.2250 DST) that Bill should not be described as
“unaffiliated”; “independent researcher” might be better. I think Bill Powers has made some additions to show that PCT is, indeed, testable/falsifiable and has been tested and not (yet) falsified.

Best

Rick

···

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

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.17.0927 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2010.05.16.1810) --

RM: If, indeed, pointing out the revolutionary nature of PCT is what you think makes PCT seem "fringy" then I completely agree with you. People who offer up "revolutionary" theories are, more often than not, either hucksters or screwballs. But sometimes they're actually courageous geniuses (like Wegener and Mendel). Based on my research I would have to put Powers in the genius class. PCT, I'm afraid, is the real revolutionary deal.

BP: I think what makes PCT seem fringy is saying that it is revolutionary and that I am a genuis for thinking it up. That is exactly how hucksters and screwballs talk. You may not be one of those, but if you sound like one nobody else will know that you aren't.

The wiki editors have something to teach us. What they visualize, it seems, is basically an anonymous encyclopedia, in which the writers do not try to draw attention to themselves, but just the opposite: they are supposed to write so that the material itself is at the center of attention. The editors don't like seeing adjectives like revolutionary, tested, proven. They don't like self-promotion, or promotion of a product like a book or an article which amounts to the same thing. They want things presented so they speak for themselves and they don't want an interpretation or evaluation rammed down the reader's throat. It seems to me that this is also a set of principles quite consistent with PCT.

We give each other a lot of leeway on CSGnet, because we're pretty sure we're all on the same side, or at least not in some kind of organized opposition. On a wiki, the reader is neither on our side nor in opposition to us.
We're speaking to strangers. I don't claim to know how to present PCT to strangers, and in fact I think I make off-putting mistakes just as much as many of us do. I, too, am used to a friendly reception. But if we want strangers to understand PCT, we have to learn better ways of approaching them.

Martin Taylor said that of all my demos, the one that he considers the most revealing is "squaring the circle." Would you be willing to write that one up as a Java demo that can be run from a web page? The "direct" mode of the demo is all that's needed, and it's far easier for a user unfamiliar with tracking to learn. The default mode is too hard for an introduction. This demo shows exactly what is meant by saying behavior is the control of perception; the reader can prove that to his own satisfaction. This demo destroys the compute-and-execute model that practically all mainstream modelers are currently using.

There's another one from the old Demo 1. The mouse, moving vertically, determines the position of the end of a string. The string goes down to a pulley, up from its other side to another pulley, and down to the other end of the string which hangs near a target mark. The two pulleys wander randomly up and down independently, which makes the loose end of the string rise and fall relative to the mark. The participant makes the mouse move so as to keep the loose end of the string near the target mark. That much was in the old Demo 1.

Now we simply put a black screen over the pulleys, so they are invisible. All that can be seen are the two ends of the strings. The participant controls the free end of the string by acting through a black box that inserts two unobservable disturbances (the two pulley positions) between the mouse and the controlled variable. After the participant has shown that control exists with the black screen in place, the screen is removed to show the mechanism it hides.

You already have several experiments that show lack of correlation where any lineal input-output model would require a high correlation.

Years ago, I published a chapter in a book which showed that providing answers to questions is not a stimulus-response mechanism. Given a problem like 3 + 7 = ?, the participant moves a cursor up and down a column of numbers to indicate the right answer, 10 in this case. There is, of a course, a different disturbance added to the mouse position on each trial to help determine the cursor position, so the mouse moves to a different position each time the same answer is required. This shows that the answer is not just a learned motor response. There is no "right motor response." Oddly enough, I never receive a single comment from anyone on this demonstration, not even the editors who asked me to submit an article, and published it. Maybe nobody bought the book.

Best,

Bill P.

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2010.05.17.17.39]

[From Rick Marken (2010.05.17.0915)]

Martin
Taylor (2010.05.17.00.37) –

As
for whether [PCT] is seen as revolutionary, I don’t care one way or the
other.

I don’t think this is actually true. You seem to be quite opposed to
PCT being seen as revolutionary. Just look at how you end this and your
next post. You compare me to Robespierre, for chrissakes.

Yes, I do, because you and he had similar opinions as to what to do
with the revolutionary impure: “Off with their heads”. I don’t think it
is the best way to get the undecided onto your side.

Martin Taylor (2010.05.17.10.12)–

Over the years, the purist “revolutionary”
approach on CSGnet has driven away from PCT (or at least from CSGnet)
many who could have become major contributors. Maybe you think they
were impure and unworthy of access to the holy truth, but I don’t
accept that concept. It’s time to stop.

Well, I’m afraid I am not going to stop because my main interest in
PCT (since 1979, when I did my first research studies on PCT) has been
it’s implications for psychological research, which are truly
revolutionary. PCT shows that the causal model that is the basis of all
psychological research is wrong. That’s revolutionary, whether you want
it to be or not.

Maybe so. The truth of that statement is irrelevant if your objective
is to get people to understand what PCT is. I said that my objective
was to get people to understand and use PCT. My objective is not to get
them to understand that PCT is revolutionary. If someone comes to
understand PCT, they will be able to make their own judgment as to
whether they think it is revolutionary. I said, as you quoted above,
that I don’t care whether it is revolutionary or not. I care that so
far as I can see, it is a correct basis for understanding psychology
(and a lot more besides).

The PCT revolution is carried out with data and models. I
think you miss this point completely (and rather rudely dismiss my work
in PCT) when you compare it to the French revolution, where the
revolutionary idea was argued with violence rather than science.

I admit you don’t use physical violence on those who miss the point,
but rhetorical violence is not unknown in your messages.

As far as my purist “revolutionary” approach “driving people off who
could have become major contributors”, I don’t know who you might mean.
It seems to me that the only people who have left PCT are people who
drove themselves off when they didn’t like hearing (and being shown)
that they were wrong.

Just for starters I can name two powerful scientists who are my
friends. They are powerful both because of their reach within the
scientific community and because of the depth and breadth of their
scientific contributions: Keith Hendy and Roger Moore.

Roger has held high offices in the European and international speech
processing communities. He would like to use PCT to develop methods for
automatic speech recognition because he thinks the methods the
community uses (and on which he has worked for some decades) have come
to a dead end. He actually did try to insert some sense into one
discussion a year or two ago, after lurking for many years, but was
roundly told off and hasn’t contributed again.

Keith used to read CSGnet, but I don’t know if he ever bothers any
more, but he told me once that there was no way he would suggest that
his students read it, even though his research with them used PCT. In
the 1990s Keith published quite a few papers that started by explaining
the rudiments of PCT and how it was valuable for such things as cockpit
design, workload analysis, and (I don’t know if this area was published
or is confidential) air accident and incident investigation. There may
be people of whom we know little or nothing who use a version of PCT
because of Keith. We know nothing of them because they don’t contribute
to CSGnet, and their version of PCT might well not be “pure” because
they haven’t had the opportunity to have it critiqued. PCT itself might
have benefited from incorporation of some of the extensions Keith and
his co-workers developed for workload and situation awareness studies.

I realize that word “extensions” may alert your Robespierrian antennae,
but remember, a correct Perceptual Control Theory is not what any
individual says it is, even Bill. An incorrect PCT is one that is
usupportable by normal scientific methods (being internally
inconsistent theoretically, or producing predictions that are
contradicted by data). A PCT that isn’t Bill’s preferred pure
hierarchic perceptual control theory is not necessarily wrong, and
unless it produces predictions that are worse than are produced by
HPCT, it isn’t even testably worse than HPCT.

I have seen this happen both on and off CSGNet, with the
news people didn’t want to hear coming more often than not from Bill
Powers rather than me.

When I get a chance I will re-edit the PCT Wiki entry. I think Bill
made some good changes. I think there could be some more that would
help. I agree with Richard Pfau (2010.05.16.2250 DST) that Bill should
not be described as “unaffiliated”; “independent researcher” might be
better. I think Bill Powers has made some additions to show that PCT
is, indeed, testable/falsifiable and has been tested and not (yet)
falsified.

Any editing that enhances the WIki page is all to the good, provided
that it aims to help people understand what PCT is, but editing that
helps people to understand only that PCT is revolutionary is unhelpful.

My own vision of that page sees it with quite a few sections dealing
with different areas of theory and of application. The biggest problem
is the lack of readily accessible published material, which has to be
listed in support of every assertion. To avoid possible questions about
conflict of interest, the publications used in support should not be
one’s own.

The MOL page needs to be written. As it stands, all it says is that the
method exists, and offers a reference to Tim Carey’s book.

Martin

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.05.17.1530)]

Bill Powers (2010.05.17.0927 MDT)–

Rick Marken (2010.05.16.1810) –

RM: If, indeed, pointing out the revolutionary nature of PCT is what you think makes PCT seem “fringy” then I completely agree with you. People who offer up “revolutionary” theories are, more often than not, either hucksters or screwballs. But sometimes they’re actually courageous geniuses (like Wegener and Mendel). Based on my research I would have to put Powers in the genius class. PCT, I’m afraid, is the real revolutionary deal.

BP: I think what makes PCT seem fringy is saying that it is revolutionary and that I am a genuis for thinking it up. That is exactly how hucksters and screwballs talk.

I agree. And if any of that were said in the PCT Wiki it would have been a good reason for people (including Martin) to have seen that Wiki as describing a fringe science. But none of that was in the PCT Wiki.

The wiki editors have something to teach us. What they visualize, it seems, is basically an anonymous encyclopedia, in which the writers do not try to draw attention to themselves, but just the opposite: they are supposed to write so that the material itself is at the center of attention.

And I think the existing PCT Wiki does just that. The discussion about the “revolutionary-ness” of PCT was all about why Martin (and others) saw the PCT Wiki as describing a fringy science. It certainly wasn’t because the Wiki said PCT is a revolutionary theory developed by a genius. My guess was (and still is ) that it’s because the PCT Wiki included accurate descriptions of aspects of PCT that are seen as revolutionary and, thus, marginalizable (ie. fringy).

The editors don’t like seeing adjectives like revolutionary, tested, proven.

And such adjectives were not used so they couldn’t have been the reason why Martin and the editors of the Control Theory Wiki thought that PCT was fringy.

They want things presented so they speak for themselves and they don’t want an interpretation or evaluation rammed down the reader’s throat. It seems to me that this is also a set of principles quite consistent with PCT.

I completely agree. And as I read the original PCT Wiki, which is basically the Wiki that starts at the Introduction, it seems to meet those criteria quite well. I’m sure the write up could be improved. And I will give it a try myself when I have time.
But right now the discussion is about what was is about the PCT Wiki that made it seem to present a picture of a fringy science to Martin and the other Wiki Control Theory editors. I used the term “revolutionary” because I think it was a description of certain revolutionary aspects of PCT – without describing them as such – that made it seem fringy to Martin. Indeed, this one sentence may have been what did it:
“In contrast with other theories of psychology and behavior, which assume that behavior is a function of perception — that perceptual inputs determine or cause behavior — PCT postulates that an organism’s behavior is a means of controlling its perceptions.”
I see that it’s no longer part of the write up. So maybe contrasting PCT with other theories is what made it seem “fringy” to Martin et al. But the current Wiki includes this sentence:
“It centers on the concept that animals are goal-driven, purposeful entities rather than automata repeating conditioned responses to external stimuli or computers planning commands that will produce desired actions”.
This also contrasts PCT with other theories so if it’s contrast that makes a description seem fringy then Martin should object to this description also. And he should object to his own description as well where he says: “a tradition that emphasises the fact that behaviour is purposeful
rather than “reactionary”” , which contrasts the PCT tradition with another.

No, I think it’s just the description of revolutionary concepts that does it, without saying they are revolutionary.

But if we want strangers to understand PCT, we have to learn better ways of approaching them.

I’m sure we can learn to do it better. And, as I said, the Wiki could certainly be improved, but my reading of the Wiki makes it hard for me to see how one could come up with the idea that PCT is fringy in any way other than that it is not very widely accepted.

Martin Taylor said that of all my demos, the one that he considers the most revealing is “squaring the circle.” Would you be willing to write that one up as a Java demo that can be run from a web page?

Not now. I’ve got lots of work and my main PCT work is going to be on the RT experiment for which I am using your program. I might try to get that one into java but I’d much rather continue using your program; java is not good for data collection since it gets interrupts from the operating system every so often, no matter the priority of the thread, it seem;-)

Best regards

Rick

···

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

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2010.05.18.00.32]

···

On 2010/05/17 6:28 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2010.05.17.1530)]

Bill
Powers (2010.05.17.0927 MDT)–

Rick Marken (2010.05.16.1810) –

RM: If, indeed, pointing out the revolutionary nature of PCT is what
you think makes PCT seem “fringy” then I completely agree with you.
People who offer up “revolutionary” theories are, more often than not,
either hucksters or screwballs. But sometimes they’re actually
courageous geniuses (like Wegener and Mendel). Based on my research I
would have to put Powers in the genius class. PCT, I’m afraid, is the
real revolutionary deal.

BP: I think what makes PCT seem fringy is saying that it is
revolutionary and that I am a genuis for thinking it up. That is
exactly how hucksters and screwballs talk.

I agree. And if any of that were said in the PCT Wiki it would have
been a good reason for people (including Martin) to have seen that Wiki
as describing a fringe science. But none of that was in the PCT Wiki.

Go back to my original message on the topic to see why I said the page
read as though PCT was a fringe science. Don’t rely on your imagination
of what I might have said.

Martin

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.05.18.0850)]

Martin Taylor (2010.05.17.17.39)–

Rick Marken (2010.05.17.0915)–

PCT shows that the causal model that is the basis of all
psychological research is wrong. That’s revolutionary, whether you want
it to be or not.

Maybe so. The truth of that statement is irrelevant if your objective
is to get people to understand what PCT is.

The truth of that statement is relevant to providing a correct description of PCT. It describes one of the fundamental facts about behavior according to PCT:

(1) qo = -1/g() d

Assuming a constant reference, equation (1) says that behavioral output, qo, varies as the inverse of the feedback function, 1/g(), in opposition (-) to disturbances, d, to a controlled variable. This fact is in contrast to the causal model of behavior, which says that:

(2) qo = f() d

where f() is the “organism function” or “mental preocesses” the are assumed to mediate between stimulus (d) and response (qo).

The difference between equations (1) and (2) illustrates the “behavioral illusion”, one of the most important facts of PCT. It is the reason why it is correct to say that PCT shows that the causal model of behavior, which is embodied in equation (2), is wrong.

So I think the truth of the statement “PCT shows that the causal model that is the basis of all
psychological research is wrong” is not irrelevant to getting people to understand PCT since it seems like an understanding of PCT is best obtained from correct descriptions of it.

I said that my objective
was to get people to understand and use PCT. My objective is not to get
them to understand that PCT is revolutionary.

My objective is to help people correctly understand PCT, some aspects of which are revolutionary (such as the “behavioral illusion” above). But I, like you, am not interested in getting people to understand that PCT is revolutionary. My point is that certain aspects of PCT (such as the “behavioral illusion”) are revolutionary and will therefore be treated as being “fringy” by people who take the conventional view for granted.

If someone comes to
understand PCT, they will be able to make their own judgment as to
whether they think it is revolutionary.

Of course.

I said, as you quoted above,
that I don’t care whether it is revolutionary or not. I care that so
far as I can see, it is a correct basis for understanding psychology
(and a lot more besides).

Same with me. And one of the things about PCT that provides a correct basis for understanding psychology is that it points out that the appearance that environmental events (d) cause behavior (qo), as in the typical psychological experiment, is an illusion.

As far as my purist “revolutionary” approach “driving people off who
could have become major contributors”, I don’t know who you might mean.
It seems to me that the only people who have left PCT are people who
drove themselves off when they didn’t like hearing (and being shown)
that they were wrong.

Just for starters I can name two powerful scientists who are my
friends. They are powerful both because of their reach within the
scientific community and because of the depth and breadth of their
scientific contributions: Keith Hendy and Roger Moore.

I had no idea Hendy was ever on CSGNet. I did communicate with him a bit when I was working on my “prescribing error” project that resulting in my Ergonomics paper (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a778709832~db=all). I remember reading one of two papers by Keith. He certainly knows the mathematics of control theory but I don’t think he really cares that much for PCT; his papers were more like those of other conventional manual control theory types – Wickins, Jagacinski and Flach, for example. I have no recollection of Roger Moore, though I liked him more as Maverick than as Bond;-)

Any editing that enhances the WIki page is all to the good, provided
that it aims to help people understand what PCT is, but editing that
helps people to understand only that PCT is revolutionary is unhelpful.

OK, I’ll see what I can do. I plan to add a section to the Wiki on “PCT and Experimental Psychology”. I will never use the word “revolutionary” or any of its cognates. I will simply point out what I described above: That PCT shows that the causal model, which is the basis of all
psychological research, is wrong. And I’ll explain why this is true. Basically I’ll try to (very succinctly) describe the findings in Bill’s 1978 Psych Review paper and in some of my recent papers. Or maybe you could do it; that way you could make sure it contains no inkling of “revolution”.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.18.0911 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2010.05.18.00.32--

Go back to my original message on the topic to see why I said the page read as though PCT was a fringe science. Don't rely on your imagination of what I might have said.

I was the one who said the things Rick objected to most recently. In fact, the wiki section I edited started out by saying that PCT was a testable proven theory of behavior, or something like that. He must not have read that before I edited it out.

It's funny (sort of) how rapidly our discussions veer off the topic and onto who said what and when, and who was right and who was wrong. A stranger tuning in to CSGnet might get an impression that this discussion is about who is the most right and reasonable and scientific and smart person. Why do we waste our time like that? I know, I'm the one on CSGnet with the most reason to be stingy with my time, but couldn't we be doing something more useful?

Rick says he doesn't care if anyone else accepts PCT, but I do -- I've spent 2/3 of my life trying to make the ideas and facts behind PCT clear to other people (as well as to myself). I care a lot about trying to make life better for all people including me, and I think PCT will help do that -- partly because it seems to be the truth so far, and partly because it's time we abandoned the cold, inhumane, simplistic, and wildly impractical theories that now hold sway. I'm part do-gooder and part revolutionary.

It would be an interesting exercise to work up a presentation of PCT that is the kind one finds in any encyclopedia (which I think is what the wiki people are striving for).

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.05.18.1310 EDT)]

[From Rick Marken (2010.05.18.0850)]

The truth of that statement is relevant to providing a correct description of PCT. It describes one of the fundamental facts about behavior according to PCT:

(1) qo = -1/g() d

Assuming a constant reference, equation (1) says that behavioral output, qo, varies as the inverse of the feedback function, 1/g(), in opposition (-) to disturbances, d, to a controlled variable. This fact is in contrast to the causal model of behavior, which says that:

(2) qo = f() d

where f() is the “organism function” or “mental preocesses” the are assumed to mediate between stimulus (d) and response (qo).

The difference between equations (1) and (2) illustrates the “behavioral illusion”, one of the most important facts of PCT. It is the reason why it is correct to say that PCT shows that the causal model of behavior, which is embodied in equation (2), is wrong.

(2) is only “wrong” if f() can never be equal to -1/g(). Since this condition is not obvious, some confusion may be inevitable.

Bruce

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.05.18.1045)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.05.18.1310 EDT)–

Rick Marken (2010.05.18.0850)

The truth of that statement is relevant to providing a correct description of PCT. It describes one of the fundamental facts about behavior according to PCT:

(1) qo = -1/g() d

Assuming a constant reference, equation (1) says that behavioral output, qo, varies as the inverse of the feedback function, 1/g(), in opposition (-) to disturbances, d, to a controlled variable. This fact is in contrast to the causal model of behavior, which says that:

(2) qo = f() d

where f() is the “organism function” or “mental preocesses” the are assumed to mediate between stimulus (d) and response (qo).

The difference between equations (1) and (2) illustrates the “behavioral illusion”, one of the most important facts of PCT. It is the reason why it is correct to say that PCT shows that the causal model of behavior, which is embodied in equation (2), is wrong.

(2) is only “wrong” if f() can never be equal to -1/g(). Since this condition is not obvious, some confusion may be inevitable.

According to PCT equation (2) is wrong even if f() = -1/g(); that is, even if f() and -1/g() are mathematically equivalent. Equation 2 is wrong (as a description of behavioral organization) because f() represents a different aspect of the behaving system than -1/g(). As I said, f() represents the “mental processes” that exist inside the organism, between sensory input to behavioral output. -1/g() is the inverse of the environmental feedback function, which represents physical properties of the environment that exist outside of the organism, linking behavioral output to sensory input.

Best

Rick

···

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

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.05.18.1402 EDT)]

[From Rick Marken (2010.05.18.1045)]

According to PCT equation (2) is wrong even if f() = -1/g(); that is, even if f() and -1/g() are mathematically equivalent. Equation 2 is wrong (as a description of behavioral organization) because f() represents a different aspect of the behaving system than -1/g(). As I said, f() represents the “mental processes” that exist inside the organism, between sensory input to behavioral output. -1/g() is the inverse of the environmental feedback function, which represents physical properties of the environment that exist outside of the organism, linking behavioral output to sensory input.

This raises an interesting point. If two theories are mathematically identical, how is it possible to make sense of a claim that one is “wrong” and the other is “right”?

Bruce

[Bruce_Gregory6]

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.05.18.1438 EDT)]

Imagine, if you will, the following situation. Someone notices that when the weather gets chilly, the furnace in his house runs more often than it does when the weather is warm. He knows nothing of control theory, so he imagines that the outside temperature causes the furnace to turn on and off. He records the temperature and notes when the furnace is on and when it is off. Sure enough he finds a correlation. The correlation is not perfect, but it supports his "theory."

Now imagine that someone comes along and tells him that his record keeping was useless. That he has no understanding of what is really happening. That in fact, a few of those who are in the know are the only ones who understand the situation and that he should keep his mouth shut and learn from his betters.

Any bets on how the story turns out?

Bruce

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Rick !

RM : The truth of that statement is relevant to providing a correct
description of PCT. It describes one of the fundamental facts about behavior
according to PCT:

(1) qo = -1/g() d

Assuming a constant reference, equation (1) says that behavioral output, qo,
varies as the inverse of the feedback function, 1/g(), in opposition (-) to
disturbances, d, to a controlled variable. This fact is in contrast to the
causal model of behavior, which says that:

(2) qo = f() d

where f() is the "organism function" or "mental preocesses" the are assumed
to mediate between stimulus (d) and response (qo).

The difference between equations (1) and (2) illustrates the "behavioral
illusion", one of the most important facts of PCT. It is the reason why it
is correct to say that PCT shows that the causal model of behavior, which is
embodied in equation (2), is wrong.

HB : It's nice explanation Rick, but I still have troubles with
understanding "what is assumed to be a constant reference" or how constant
reference for 11th level is formed ? I assume that your equatation works if
constant reference on highest level is working.

RM : So I think the truth of the statement "PCT shows that the causal model
that is the basis of all psychological research is wrong" is not irrelevant
to getting people to understand PCT since it seems like an understanding of
PCT is best obtained from correct descriptions of it.

HB : I'm still wondering : how do you know that PCT model is right or how do
you know it's not wrong ?

RM : My objective is to help people correctly understand PCT, some aspects
of which are revolutionary (such as the "behavioral illusion" above). But I,
like you, am not interested in getting people to understand that PCT is
revolutionary. My point is that certain aspects of PCT (such as the
"behavioral illusion") _are_ revolutionary and will therefore be treated as
being "fringy" by people who take the conventional view for granted.

BH : Here I have troubles understanding, how can you teach somebody about
"correctly understanding PCT", if Bill himself is not sure what is correct,
since he is changing his mind about his model almost every month ?

And I have an extra question : Can we say that PCT model shows how nervous
system really works ? Maybe "casual model" and PCT shows both wrong picture
about nervous system. I assume that the final goal of all psychological
theories (including PCT) is to explain how nervous system is working ?

Maybe nobody is right ?

Best,

Boris

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2010.05.18.14.36]

[From Rick Marken (2010.05.18.1045)]

Bruce
Gregory (2010.05.18.1310 EDT)–

Rick Marken (2010.05.18.0850)

The truth of that statement is relevant to
providing a correct description of PCT. It describes one of the
fundamental facts about behavior according to PCT:

(1) qo = -1/g() d

Assuming a constant reference, equation (1) says that behavioral
output, qo, varies as the inverse of the feedback function, 1/g(), in
opposition (-) to disturbances, d, to a controlled variable. This fact
is in contrast to the causal model of behavior, which says that:

(2) qo = f() d

where f() is the “organism function” or “mental preocesses” the are
assumed to mediate between stimulus (d) and response (qo).

The difference between equations (1) and (2) illustrates the
“behavioral illusion”, one of the most important facts of PCT. It is
the reason why it is correct to say that PCT shows that the causal
model of behavior, which is embodied in equation (2), is wrong.

(2) is only “wrong” if f() can never be equal to -1/g(). Since
this condition is not obvious, some confusion may be inevitable.

According to PCT equation (2) is wrong even if f() = -1/g(); that is,
even if f() and -1/g() are mathematically equivalent. Equation 2 is
wrong (as a description of behavioral organization) because f()
represents a different aspect of the behaving system than -1/g(). As I
said, f() represents the “mental processes” that exist inside the
organism, between sensory input to behavioral output. -1/g() is the
inverse of the environmental feedback function, which represents
physical properties of the environment that exist outside of the
organism, linking behavioral output to sensory input.

I foresee this argument going nowhere, because both Rick and Bruce are
right. Rick is right that the functions represent different processes,
and Bruce is right that there’s a mathematical issue.

Rick points out that when the reference is constant, qo is a function
of d, and the function is the inverse of the feedback loop function.
But Rick also argues that this is different from saying qo is a
function of d, if the function is conceived as due to the internal
mental processes. Bruce asks how, if qo is a function of d and only
that function can be measured, is it possible to distinguish between
whether the function is the inverse of a feedback loop function or
represents the internal mental processes.

I think it might be worthwhile to point out that when we analyze the
elementary control loop, we often assume that the output qo is simply
added to the disturbance to form qi. This means that the internal
mental processes are the only contribution to the loop feedback
function, and if the reference value remains constant, the two concepts
are not only mathematically indistinguishable, they are also
conceptually indistinguishable. They are two ways of writing the same
thing.

The functions and concepts would be conceptually and mathematically
distinct if instead of qi = qo + d, the environmental feedback path
were more complicated than a 1-1 correspondence. Then one would write
qi = E(qo) + d, and the function E() would enter into the inverse of
the loop feedback function but would not enter into the forward “mental
process” function. I think this may be why Bill’s “square-circle” demo
is so convincing.

Martin

[Bill_Powers1]

[From Bill Powers (2010.05.18.1528 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2010.05.18.0850) –

RM: The truth of that statement
is relevant to providing a correct description of PCT. It describes one
of the fundamental facts about behavior according to PCT:

(1) qo = -1/g() d

Assuming a constant reference, equation (1) says that behavioral output,
qo, varies as the inverse of the feedback function, 1/g(), in opposition
(-) to disturbances, d, to a controlled variable. This fact is in
contrast to the causal model of behavior, which says that:

(2) qo = f() d

where f() is the “organism function” or “mental
processes” the are assumed to mediate between stimulus (d) and
response (qo).

BP: That’s a good start on the kind of article the wiki editors seem to
want. However, one small tweak is needed to avoid usurping the reader’s
right to draw his own conclusions. When you say “This fact” you
upgrade the equation from a theory-based proposal to an observed
phenomenon, which the reader can’t be expected to accept at this point in
the presentation. For pedagogical purposes, it’s not a fact until the
reader agrees that it is.

This means backing up a bit before getting to the equations. We need to
find a starting place where the reader can agree and understand without
knowing anything about control theory (even though we know that many
readers will have some understanding of it). One approach would then be
to introduce feedback concepts by showing first that a closed loop
exists, then that the feedback in organisms is concurrent with the
perceptions, then how disturbances relate to behavior, and finally show
the two equations as representing behavior without feedback and with
feedback. The important thing is to show how the two ways of seeing
behavior differ, without saying that one is better than the other (we
want the reader to make that decision).

I think it’s important to present the feedback equation in its exact form
first, because (1) above is an approximation that is true only for
infinite loop gain. If you don’t explain that, the reader can be misled
into thinking that no forward link is required, since it drops out of the
approximation. There’s already enough confusion about
“feedforward;” we don’t need to contribute to it.

RM: The difference between
equations (1) and (2) illustrates the “behavioral illusion”,
one of the most important facts of PCT. It is the reason why it is
correct to say that PCT shows that the causal model of behavior, which is
embodied in equation (2), is wrong.

BP: I think we have to avoid completely saying that the causal model is
wrong. (Understand that I’m talking to myself as much as to you). That
has to be the reader’s own discovery. We can say “Notice the
difference.” Equation 2 says that the forward link through the
organism determines the relationship observed between the input and the
output. Equation 1 says that this relationship is also shaped by the
feedback link, and if there is enough “loop gain” (explain),
almost exclusively by the feedback link. We can say “This leads to a
different interpretation of how the input is related to the output.”
We don’t need to say it’s the right interpretation, just that it’s
different, and how it’s different. We can say that this difference in
interpretations leads to many divergences of PCT from conventional
theories of behavior.

For this reason, I recommend leaving “behavioral illusion” out.
Calling the interpretation an illusion is putting our conclusions in the
place of the reader’s. It’s not an illusion until the reader sees that
it’s a mistake.

So I think the truth of the
statement “PCT shows that the causal model that is the basis of all
psychological research is wrong” is not irrelevant to getting people
to understand PCT since it seems like an understanding of PCT is
best obtained from correct descriptions of it.

But that is your conclusion, not the reader’s. We want to lead the reader
into drawing that conclusion without putting it in the reader’s mouth. If
the reader comes to that conclusion spontaneously, the result will be
understanding. If you try to hand that conclusion to the reader, the
result will be resistance and opposition.

Martin Taylor (MMT): I said that my objective was to get people to
understand and use PCT. My objective is not to get them to understand
that PCT is revolutionary.

RM: My objective is to help
people correctly understand PCT, some aspects of which are revolutionary
(such as the “behavioral illusion” above). But I, like you, am
not interested in getting people to understand that PCT is revolutionary.
My point is that certain aspects of PCT (such as the “behavioral
illusion”) are revolutionary and will therefore be treated as
being “fringy” by people who take the conventional view for
granted.

BP: It’s not the reader’s fault if your words are taken as being fringy.
It’s yours, for not anticipating the most probable impression your words
will make, and thus not taking steps to forestall that
impression.

MMT: If someone comes to understand PCT, they will be able to make
their own judgment as to whether they think it is revolutionary.

RM: Of course.

MMT: I said, as you quoted above, that I don’t care whether it is
revolutionary or not. I care that so far as I can see, it is a correct
basis for understanding psychology (and a lot more
besides).

RM: Same with me. And one of the
things about PCT that provides a correct basis for understanding
psychology is that it points out that the appearance that environmental
events (d) cause behavior (qo), as in the typical psychological
experiment, is an illusion.

RM:As far as my purist
“revolutionary” approach “driving people off who could
have become major contributors”, I don’t know who you might mean. It
seems to me that the only people who have left PCT are people who drove
themselves off when they didn’t like hearing (and being shown) that they
were wrong.

BP: You don’t like being shown you’re wrong before you’re ready to decide
that you are, either. Nobody does. If you just want to win arguments by
showing people you are right and they are wrong, people will stop arguing
with you, but they won’t come around to your side.

Best,

Bill P.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.05.18.2030)]

Bill Powers (2010.05.18.1528 MDT)–

Rick Marken (2010.05.18.0850) –

RM: Assuming a constant reference, equation (1) says that behavioral output,
qo, varies as the inverse of the feedback function, 1/g(), in opposition
(-) to disturbances, d, to a controlled variable. This fact is in
contrast to the causal model of behavior,

BP: That’s a good start on the kind of article the wiki editors seem to
want. However, one small tweak is needed to avoid usurping the reader’s
right to draw his own conclusions. When you say “This fact” you
upgrade the equation from a theory-based proposal to an observed
phenomenon, which the reader can’t be expected to accept at this point in
the presentation.

I meant it was a fact about how control systems work. I will try to be clearer in the wiki article, should I ever get the time to write it.

This means backing up a bit before getting to the equations. We need to
find a starting place where the reader can agree and understand without
knowing anything about control theory

Good idea.

The important thing is to show how the two ways of seeing
behavior differ, without saying that one is better than the other (we
want the reader to make that decision).

Yes.

BP: I think we have to avoid completely saying that the causal model is
wrong. (Understand that I’m talking to myself as much as to you). That
has to be the reader’s own discovery.

Sure. I think I rarely say it this way in my articles on this topic.

We can say “Notice the
difference.” Equation 2 says that the forward link through the
organism determines the relationship observed between the input and the
output. Equation 1 says that this relationship is also shaped by the
feedback link, and if there is enough “loop gain” (explain),
almost exclusively by the feedback link. We can say “This leads to a
different interpretation of how the input is related to the output.”
We don’t need to say it’s the right interpretation, just that it’s
different, and how it’s different. We can say that this difference in
interpretations leads to many divergences of PCT from conventional
theories of behavior.

I would add that this difference would require a different approach to understanding behavior (and the mind), one oriented toward the discovery of controlled variables. I would then give a brief description of what experimental psychology would look like if it were based on the closed-loop control model of behavior.

For this reason, I recommend leaving “behavioral illusion” out.
Calling the interpretation an illusion is putting our conclusions in the
place of the reader’s. It’s not an illusion until the reader sees that
it’s a mistake.

I kind of disagree with this. I don’t see what’s wrong with saying: IF the control theory view of behavior is correct then the appearance of a causal connection between environmental events (the IV in psychological experiments) and behavior (the DV) is something like a visual illusion; it looks like causality when it’s actually disturbance resistance (control); it’s called “the behavioral illusion” and it has been demonstrated experimentally (then I would refer them to Experiment 4 in your 1978 Psych Review paper).

So I think the truth of the
statement “PCT shows that the causal model that is the basis of all
psychological research is wrong” is not irrelevant to getting people
to understand PCT since it seems like an understanding of PCT is
best obtained from correct descriptions of it.

But that is your conclusion, not the reader’s.

I would not put that into a wiki. That was written to Martin.

RM: My point is that certain aspects of PCT (such as the “behavioral
illusion”) are revolutionary and will therefore be treated as
being “fringy” by people who take the conventional view for
granted.
BP: It’s not the reader’s fault if your words are taken as being fringy.
It’s yours, for not anticipating the most probable impression your words
will make, and thus not taking steps to forestall that
impression.

I’m not blaming anyone. I’m just saying that the point I made is true (at least I have found it glaringly so after 30 years of this). And how you can still believe that it is possible to select your words so that people will not resist as “fringy” PCT ideas that are inconsistent with their existing beliefs is beyond me.

RM:As far as my purist
“revolutionary” approach “driving people off who could
have become major contributors”, I don’t know who you might mean. It
seems to me that the only people who have left PCT are people who drove
themselves off when they didn’t like hearing (and being shown) that they
were wrong.

BP: You don’t like being shown you’re wrong before you’re ready to decide
that you are, either. Nobody does. If you just want to win arguments by
showing people you are right and they are wrong, people will stop arguing
with you, but they won’t come around to your side.

I should have said: It
seems to me that the only people who have left PCT are people who drove
themselves off when they didn’t like what they were hearing. That they were shown to be “wrong” was my perception.

Best

Rick

···

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.05.18.2330)]

Bill Powers (2010.05.18.0911 MDT)–

Rick says he doesn’t care if anyone else accepts PCT, but I do

Well, for the record, what I said is: I am
not interested in getting people to understand that PCT is revolutionary. I am interested in getting people to understand PCT. And I certainly would like to see people accept PCT. But I’ve seen too many people accept PCT only to find that they accept something quite different than what I understand PCT to be. The only problem with that (from my perspective) is that I end up without anyone to play PCT with (well, do research with). It’s like having people accept being your partner at “bridge” only to find that what they call “bridge” is what you call “gin rummy”. This makes for bridge partnerships that are as unpleasant as some of the “partnerships” we experience with people who “accept” PCT.

Best

Rick

···

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