From[Bill Williams 21 May 2004 10:20 PM CST]
[From Bill Powers (2004.05.21.1554 MDT)]
Bill Williams 21 May 2004 3:30 PM CST --
>As best I can tell the professor was talking about the purposeful control
>of behavior in the face of a disturbance.
That's a common mistake
No it is not. Rather it is a big step up from behaviorism which denys that
there is such a thing a purposeful control of behavior. What the
comprehension of human behavior as being intentional does is to create a
situation in which, as the professor explained, there is a need for a causal
explaination. And, when behavior is described in terms of a process of
control that narrows down the search for a mechanism. This is not what I
would describe in terms of "a common mistake." Rather it is a realization
that thirty years ago went against the mistake that had dominated
psychology. It was a conception of human behavior that led me to learn to
use op-Amps and a job applying them to automate agricultural machinery. And,
it was a conception that resulted in my understanding my student pilots
PIO's in control theory terms. That is in terms that allowed me to explain
to them how the PIO was provoked and what they could do to escape from it--
an explaination that at the time was not a part of training sylabus. It was
also a comprehension that resulted my colaborating with an engineer who had
as a senior project designed an autopilot system.
I think perhaps that the scoring should be left to a disinterested party.
Now this is a common mistake-- that is the idea that there is such a thing
as a _disinterested party_. It comes from thinking about human behavior in
precontrol theory terms. "Scoring" is a process of behavior, and obviously
there is no behavior in the absence of interests. This is direct evidence
that you have yet to internalize and apply a control theory standpoint.
"disinterested party" ???
score minus 1