[From Rick Marken (940919.1015)]
Jeff Vancouver (940913) --
Upshot, she is very close to PCT in principle, but errors on some of the
details. This is the basic argument I have been making to the Locke et al
camp.
Ah, but in those details is where the god of PCT lives. The difference
between PCT and conventional behavioral science is based on one, tiny detail;
a preposition. In conventional behavioral science, behavior is controlled
_by_ perception; PCT shows that behavior is the control _of_ perception. Just
a detail.
incorporating that[ DME] into the control theory model is paramount on my
list of things to do.
Why? Doesn't it seem like the first thing to do would be to obtain some
nice, clear, reliable data and THEN decide what kind of model might be needed
to explain it?
Third, the issue of the use of statistics (conventional behavioral science
methods) continues to bother many on the net.
No. It's the MISuse of statistics that bothers us; in particular, using
aggregate data as the basis for conclusions about individuals.
systems/cybernetic/control theory framework. I see those as subsets of each
other.
Me too. "Cybernetics" is a subset of "systems" because the latter is a type
of perceptual variable and the former is a state of that type of variable
(other states include "S-R", "information theory" and "control theory"
itself). Control theory is the superset of both "cybernetics" and "systems"
because it explains how and why people maintain (control) systems variables
in states like "cybernetics" or "control theory".
Best
Rick