Bizarro PCT

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
21

[from Jeff Vancouver 990825.0900 EST]

Rick Marken (990824.1540)]

But the extant data is not relevant to individual behavior.

This is the premise that you, Phil, Bill, and a subset of cognitive
psychologists believe. Several other psychologists believe that aggregated
data can be difficult to tie to quantitative (to use your word) theories of
behavior, but not irrelevant (I am in this group). What even more
psychologists seem to believe is that this aggregated data is the only
relevant data. Given this later group (and the middle group), one must
provide support for the premise if the premise is key to ones argument. In
particular, provide evidence that one can easily misinterpret the meaning of
the aggregated data in this circumstance (I think it is difficult to
generally condemn aggregated data, given that even after reading Phil's
book, I was not convinced).

So why should PCT have to explain data that other theories
can't explain?

Because some in the audience believe that there are theories that explain
the data. What's more, because C&S seem to be using a PCT-like theory, it
is difficult for the audience to realize that the explanation is not
relevant to PCT (or PCT-like, but "quantitative" theories).

Your behavioral illusion demo does this with aplomb.

This is _not_ what the behavioral illusion demo (which is Bill
Powers' brilliant discovery, not mine) does with aplomb. The
behavioral illusion shows that the form of (noise free) "organism"
functions (IV-DV relationships for individual organisms) are
actually the inverse of the feedback function when the organism
is a control system and the IV and DV are independent influences
on a controlled variable.

That may be true, but simultaneously it is the type of argument (accounts
for the data/different theory) that scientists find compelling. Same
stimuli; used by different input functions.

If the "issue" is control of perception then why are C&S not doing
experiments to determine what perceptions individuals control?
It looks to me like the issue for C&S is always "does variable X
have an effect on variable Y"?

What a lot of psychologists want to know is: if PCT (or any theory) is true,
what are the implications of that? Now you know and I know that first we
have to understand what people are controlling, but once that is known, many
of us want to know how we might affect the nature of that control so that we
are better controlling the variables we seek to control (i.e., safety for
ourselves and children, higher levels of productivity, etc.). So now you
know the truth, I am in this so that I can control my variables better.
Particularly my variables that are disturbed by other people. Knowing what
others are controlling is not enough. Knowing how to influence how others
control those variables is what it is all about for me.

Don't get me wrong. I believe, although the data are not all in, that
simply helping people harmoniously control their own variables will likely
go a long way toward me being able to control my variables (e.g., like us
all getting along!). That is why I am having this conversation Rick, to
help you control your variables (okay, that is a stretch).

Jeff

22

[From Bruce Gregory (990825.1006 EDT)]

Jeff Vancouver 990825.0900 EST

I think it is difficult to
generally condemn aggregated data, given that even after
reading Phil's
book, I was not convinced).

I doubt that Phil wants to condemn aggregate data. He simply points out
the perils of applying aggregate data to understanding individuals. The
stock market is a rich source of aggregate data. Assuming that a stock
chosen at random will perform in the same way as the aggregate may not
be the basis for a wise investment strategy. Physicists get away with
using aggregate data because, as far as we can tell, all electrons _are_
identical. Living systems are not identical and PCT demonstrates why
this is so.

Because some in the audience believe that there are theories
that explain
the data.

That's because they believe that just-so stories are explanations. This
is not a minority belief. The overwhelming majority of folks believe
that just-so stories are explanations.

What's more, because C&S seem to be using a
PCT-like theory, it
is difficult for the audience to realize that the explanation is not
relevant to PCT (or PCT-like, but "quantitative" theories).

What a lot of psychologists want to know is: if PCT (or any
theory) is true,
what are the implications of that?

Could you point me to some evidence that a lot of psychologists adopt
this (perfectly reasonable) attitude toward PCT? Personally, I don't
know of any. But there are lots of things I am ignorant of.

So now you
know the truth, I am in this so that I can control my
variables better.
Particularly my variables that are disturbed by other people.

That's an interesting belief. If I wanted to improve my tennis game (a
control issue where my variables are disturbed by others) I think I'd
seek out a tennis coach rather than an expert in PCT. Look what happened
to St. Augustine when he turned to the Bible to improve his tennis game.

Knowing what
others are controlling is not enough. Knowing how to
influence how others
control those variables is what it is all about for me.

So its controlling others that appeals to you. Again you are certainly
in the majority.

Bruce Gregory

23

[From Rick Marken (990825.0820)]

Jeff Vancouver (990825.0900 EST) --

Several other psychologists believe that aggregated data can be
difficult to tie to quantitative (to use your word) theories of
behavior, but not irrelevant (I am in this group).

Why do you believe this? Can you show me _one_ example where a
quantitative theory of individual behavior has been correctly
and accurately used to explain aggregated data?

What even more psychologists seem to believe is that this aggregated
data is the only relevant data. Given this later group (and the middle
group), one must provide support for the premise if the premise is key
to ones argument. In particular, provide evidence that one can easily
misinterpret the meaning of the aggregated data in this circumstance

See Powers, W. T. (1991) "Control theory and statistical
generalizations," _American Behavioral Scientist_, 34(1),
September/October, 24-31.

Me:

So why should PCT have to explain data that other theories
can't explain?

Jeff:

Because some in the audience believe that there are theories
that explain the data.

Yes. They will have to be educated. Though I doubt that the
education will be successful. We don't seem to be dealing with
scientists searching for knowledge, here; we seem to be
dealing with academics searching for some glimmer of fame.

Me:

This is _not_ what the behavioral illusion demo (which is Bill
>Powers' brilliant discovery, not mine) does with aplomb.

Jeff:

That may be true, but simultaneously it is the type of argument
(accounts for the data/different theory) that scientists find
compelling. Same stimuli; used by different input functions.

The behavioral illusion shows that the _nature of the relationship_
between the same stimuli (using the same input functions) and the
same responses depends on the _nature of the connection_ of those
stimuli and responses to a controlled variable. This argument does
not "account for data with a different theory"; it shows that,
_in principle_, you can find out _nothing_ about the behavioral
organization of a living control system by doing research aimed at
learning how the system responds (dependent variable) to stimuli
(independent variable). The behavior illusion only applies to the
observation of stimulus-response relationships for _individual_
control systems; aggregated stimulus-response relationships go
beyond telling you nothing about control all the way to telling
you falsehoods (see the Powers paper referred to above).

So now you know the truth, I am in this so that I can control my
variables better.

I would suggest that, if you are having trouble controlling
variables, you might look at your own controlling for evidence of
internal conflict. It looks to me like you are trying to control
for both "doing PCT" and "doing conventional psych". I think
you are finding that it is impossible to control for both at
the same time. I can't solve this conflict for you (I solved it
for myself by abandoning my interest in controlling for "doing
conventional psych"). All I can tell you is that you won't
be able to control either perception successfully as long as you
try to control for both simultaneously. The first step to solving
internal conflicts like this is realizing that you are in it.

That is why I am having this conversation Rick, to help you
control your variables (okay, that is a stretch).

Thanks. If you really want to help, how about writing a video
game type program that simulates hitting balls in various
trajectories relative to the viewer; the viewer can then use
the mouse to move his/her virtual self relative to the ball.
This would be a cool testbed for determining r the variables
a person controls when catching fly balls.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

24

[From Bruce Gregory (990825.1202 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990825.0820)

If you really want to help, how about writing a video
game type program that simulates hitting balls in various
trajectories relative to the viewer; the viewer can then use
the mouse to move his/her virtual self relative to the ball.
This would be a cool testbed for determining r the variables
a person controls when catching fly balls.

This is a very nice example of one way that an understanding of PCT
could lead to improved coaching. From such an experiment a coach would
know what to suggest that a player pay attention to by learning what
good players are attending to.

Bruce Gregory

25

[from Jeff Vancouver 990825.1715 EST]

Rick Marken (990825.0820)]

me:

Several other psychologists believe that aggregated data can be
difficult to tie to quantitative (to use your word) theories of
behavior, but not irrelevant (I am in this group).

Why do you believe this? Can you show me _one_ example where a
quantitative theory of individual behavior has been correctly
and accurately used to explain aggregated data?

No, I cannot show _you_ one. Our input functions are too different on this
point. Turning gain to 0 on this issue.

Me:

Because some in the audience believe that there are theories
that explain the data.

Rick:

Yes. They will have to be educated. Though I doubt that the
education will be successful. We don't seem to be dealing with
scientists searching for knowledge, here; we seem to be
dealing with academics searching for some glimmer of fame.

This is another fundamental difference in perceptions. Although I do not
doubt they (some/most?) seek glimmers of fame, I also think they are
searching for knowledge. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt
anyway. If I don't, I do not think I (or anyone else) would get very far.
Here is a case where models of the world matter.

I would suggest that, if you are having trouble controlling
variables, you might look at your own controlling for evidence of
internal conflict. It looks to me like you are trying to control
for both "doing PCT" and "doing conventional psych". I think
you are finding that it is impossible to control for both at
the same time. I can't solve this conflict for you (I solved it
for myself by abandoning my interest in controlling for "doing
conventional psych"). All I can tell you is that you won't
be able to control either perception successfully as long as you
try to control for both simultaneously. The first step to solving
internal conflicts like this is realizing that you are in it.

Nothing like a little pop PCT. I think my conflict arises from thinking
that "doing PCT" or any science involves not simply adding to my knowledge
base, but adding to the knowledge base of the science (i.e., the scientists
in the field). Hence doing PCT means educating the science as to its
merits. This does indeed create conflict, but not necessary disharmony
internally in my system. But thanks for caring.

That is why I am having this conversation Rick, to help you
control your variables (okay, that is a stretch).

Thanks. If you really want to help, how about writing a video
game type program that simulates hitting balls in various
trajectories relative to the viewer; the viewer can then use
the mouse to move his/her virtual self relative to the ball.
This would be a cool testbed for determining r the variables
a person controls when catching fly balls.

That would be cool. Unfortunately my programming prowess does not stretch
that far. But I do remember reading about a gaming engine that allows one
to create the kind of first-person games used in those nasty Doom games. It
might be very useful for our purposes. Maybe we can get Fred's company to
pay for it. I will look into it.

Jeff

26

[From Rick Marken (990825.1520)]

Me:

Can you show me _one_ example where a quantitative theory of
individual behavior has been correctly and accurately used
to explain aggregated data?

Jeff Vancouver (990825.1715 EST) --

No, I cannot show _you_ one. Our input functions are too
different on this point.

Perhaps. But it seems like it might be useful if you could
just present what you think is a good example of the use
of a quantitative theory of individual behavior to explain
aggregated data. I might not see it the same as you but at
least I would know what we're disagreeing about.

Me:

I would suggest that, if you are having trouble controlling
variables, you might look at your own controlling for evidence
of internal conflict.

Jeff:

Nothing like a little pop PCT.... But thanks for caring.

I _was_ trying to help. You had said that you were interested
in PCT as a way of helping you "control your variables better".
PCT suggests two reasons why control might be poor; lack of
skill and internal conflict. You seem like a pretty skillful
psychologist so I was guessing that whatever "lack of control"
problems you had with PCT (if those were the problems you
were talking about; you did mention "variables that are disturbed
by other people" and I think you've mentioned feeling disturbed
at times by the response to some of your discussions of PCT
on CSGNet) _might_ be the result of an internal conflict of
the sort I described. But if that's not one of your control
problems then never mind; I really didn't mean to offend.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

27

[From Norman Hovda (990825.16:06 MST)]

At 10:08 Bruce wrote about Re: Bizarro PCT on 25 Aug 99,

[From Bruce Gregory (990825.1006 EDT)]

Jeff Vancouver 990825.0900 EST

[snip]

The stock
market is a rich source of aggregate data. Assuming that a stock chosen at
random will perform in the same way as the aggregate may not be the basis
for a wise investment strategy.

True, however, based on my observations and using my dynamic data
distribution (DDD) model to measure _one_ stock's price data will yield
similar perceptual control system phenomenon as demonstrated by
aggregate data derived from the entire stock market index data
(assuming of course I have any real idea about what HPCT is given my
very limited awareness and understanding of it.)

I believe the any data, individual or aggregate, so arranged, may yield
patterns rich in information. It seems such a DDD modeling technique
might prove beneficial to the PCT researcher willing to step outside the
box... just a thot.

Always learning and controlling for "helpful".
<g>
nth

28

[from Jeff Vancouver 990826.1010 EST]

Rick Marken (990825.1520)]

it seems like it might be useful if you could
just present what you think is a good example of the use
of a quantitative theory of individual behavior to explain
aggregated data. I might not see it the same as you but at
least I would know what we're disagreeing about.

Fair enough. I am still trying to get my hands on the C. Steele paper. It
might be of the sort. I will also send you 2 more of my papers presently.

me:

Nothing like a little pop PCT.... But thanks for caring.

I really didn't mean to offend.

You did not offend, you amused. I do not think that seeking to improve
control of variables, or even having variables with chronic errors, are
indicative of a problem per se. But let us not go there. We get to
philosophy stuff and what not. I am trying to keep to research and
communicating the significance of that research.

Jeff

29

[from Jeff Vancouver 990826.1030 est]

Bruce Gregory (990825.1006 EDT)]

Because some in the audience believe that there are theories
that explain
the data.

That's because they believe that just-so stories are explanations. This
is not a minority belief. The overwhelming majority of folks believe
that just-so stories are explanations.

Yes, your point? My point is to show where their just-so stories fall apart.
To do that I must convince them that I am taking them seriously. Indeed, I
do take them seriously. Perhaps because I think some of them are just so
good (e.g., Anderson's *ACT theory).

What a lot of psychologists want to know is: if PCT (or any
theory) is true,
what are the implications of that?

Could you point me to some evidence that a lot of psychologists adopt
this (perfectly reasonable) attitude toward PCT? Personally, I don't
know of any. But there are lots of things I am ignorant of.

Sure, Carver & Scheier and all that try to read and use them. I am not
saying these people are necessarily doing this well. Indeed, Bill P. would
argue, I think, that we are simply not ready to apply because we do not yet
understand enough. The point is that that is what they are doing. Oh yeah,
I am doing this and I think Marc is interested in this. . .

So now you
know the truth, I am in this so that I can control my
variables better.
Particularly my variables that are disturbed by other people.

That's an interesting belief. If I wanted to improve my tennis game (a
control issue where my variables are disturbed by others) I think I'd
seek out a tennis coach rather than an expert in PCT.

I am not trying to improve my tennis game (and it shows), I am trying to
understand human behavior. Would you go to an expert on PCT to understand
human behavior?

Knowing what
others are controlling is not enough. Knowing how to
influence how others
control those variables is what it is all about for me.

So its controlling others that appeals to you. Again you are certainly
in the majority.

Controlling others is a strong concept. Influence is better. The point is
that the environmental function to which outputs and disturbance flow (and
inputs derive) often involve people. So to control my perceptions better, I
want to make sure my outputs maximally counter the disturbances. To counter
disturbances, I must influence people. I am trying to do that now with you
as you tried to do with me by posting your message. I think this is the main
reason we communicate. It is not bad, it just is. This point has been
discussed on this list in the past.

Jeff

30

[From Bruce Gregory (990826.1442 EDT)]

Jeff Vancouver 990826.1030 est

Bruce Gregory (990825.1006 EDT)]

>> Because some in the audience believe that there are theories
>> that explain
>> the data.

>That's because they believe that just-so stories are
explanations. This
>is not a minority belief. The overwhelming majority of folks believe
>that just-so stories are explanations.

Yes, your point? My point is to show where their just-so
stories fall apart.

In my experience, just-so stories never fall apart. They are immune to
criticism in the same way that religious beliefs are.

Controlling others is a strong concept. Influence is better.

More politically correct?

The point is
that the environmental function to which outputs and
disturbance flow (and
inputs derive) often involve people. So to control my
perceptions better, I
want to make sure my outputs maximally counter the
disturbances. To counter
disturbances, I must influence people. I am trying to do
that now with you
as you tried to do with me by posting your message.

I have no desire to influence you, perhaps because I know that I have no
ability to influence you. If you could be influenced, Bill and Rick
would have done so long ago. The best way to control your perceptions is
to develop reference levels that do require you to "influence" others.
At least this seems to me to be a lesson from PCT.

Bruce Gregory

31

[from Jeff Vancouver 990826.1545 EST]

[From Bruce Gregory (990826.1442 EDT)]

In my experience, just-so stories never fall apart. They are immune to
criticism in the same way that religious beliefs are.

In my experience, just-so stories come and go like the mail carrier.

Controlling others is a strong concept. Influence is better.

More politically correct?

My brain is too fried to try to figure out if there is a meaningful
difference worth articulating.

I have no desire to influence you, perhaps because I know that I have no
ability to influence you. If you could be influenced, Bill and Rick
would have done so long ago. The best way to control your perceptions is
to develop reference levels that do require you to "influence" others.
At least this seems to me to be a lesson from PCT.

Both Bill and Rick have _heavily_ influenced me. I do not feel used,
abused, or anything negative because of it. Indeed, I feel wiser and
better. I also think you underestimate your own abilities.

Jeff

32

Chuck Tucker [990826]

In a message dated 8/26/99 10:15:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
vancouve@OAK.CATS.OHIOU.EDU writes:

<< Fair enough. I am still trying to get my hands on the C. Steele paper. It
might be of the sort. I will also send you 2 more of my papers presently. >>

Send me these papers if I have not already recieved them (I hope you have
records!)

Regards,
                      Chuck

33

[from Jeff Vancouver 990827.1630 EST]

To Chuck and others wanting papers.

Email me your email address so I can attach them. ALso let me know what you
can read (Word, Wordperfect, what versions). My email is:

vancouve@OAK.CATS.OHIOU.EDU

For the Steele paper, I will need an address (although I may trying scanning
it in and then emailing).

Jeff

34

[From Jeff Vancouver 990824.1420 EST]

Of course there was Wiener and Ashby. But I suppose we should not go there.

Jeff

What is your objection to Wiener and Ashby? I just finished Intro to
Cybernetics, and thought it was a great book. Perhaps you are objecting to
Design for a Brain (which I haven't read yet)? If so, then why?

35

[From Rick Marken (990830.0950)]

Jeff Vancouver (990824.1420 EST) --

Of course there was Wiener and Ashby. But I suppose we should
not go there.

Matthew Heaney (990828) --

What is your objection to Wiener and Ashby?

I think this came up in the context of the discussion of who
introduced the negative feedback concept into psychology. I
think Jeff was suggesting (correctly) that Wiener and Ashby
should be included as legitimate ancestors of PCT. I think
Jeff thought that we "should not go there" (to a discussion
of the contributions of Wiener and Ashby), not because he
objected to Wiener and/or Ashby but because he guessed
(correctly again) that I would point out that Wiener and Ashby
(like all other precursor's to PCT) missed one essential little
fact about how control systems work: they control perceptual
representations of external aspects of the environment relative
to their own reference specifications for those perceptions.
It's this fact about how control systems work (control of
perception) that Bill Powers explained in _Behavior: The
Control of Perception_. It's an understanding of this fact
about control system operation that makes it possible to
apply control theory appropriately to behavior (as Bill
Powers did with PCT). When control theory is applied correctly
to behavior you can see that behavior is the control of
perception, not (as Wiener, Ashby and the psychological
establishment in general believe) vice versa.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

36

[from Jeff Vancouver 990830.1420 EST]

Rick Marken (990830.0950)]

Jeff Vancouver (990824.1420 EST) --

Of course there was Wiener and Ashby. But I suppose we should
not go there.

Matthew Heaney (990828) --

What is your objection to Wiener and Ashby?

I think this came up in the context of the discussion of who
introduced the negative feedback concept into psychology. I
think Jeff was suggesting (correctly) that Wiener and Ashby
should be included as legitimate ancestors of PCT. I think
Jeff thought that we "should not go there" (to a discussion
of the contributions of Wiener and Ashby), not because he
objected to Wiener and/or Ashby but because he guessed
(correctly again) that I would point out that Wiener and Ashby
(like all other precursor's to PCT) missed one essential little
fact about how control systems work: they control perceptual
representations of external aspects of the environment relative
to their own reference specifications for those perceptions.
It's this fact about how control systems work (control of
perception) that Bill Powers explained in _Behavior: The
Control of Perception_. It's an understanding of this fact
about control system operation that makes it possible to
apply control theory appropriately to behavior (as Bill
Powers did with PCT). When control theory is applied correctly
to behavior you can see that behavior is the control of
perception, not (as Wiener, Ashby and the psychological
establishment in general believe) vice versa.

I think we are actually beginning to understand each other!

That is what I meant.

BTW, I was looking over my "Goal Construct" (in Psych Bull, 1996) paper
today and noticed that at one point we claimed that Powers was a model of
the control of actions. It's a gremlin, I swear. It either makes us
psychologists mis-type or it simply changes the text on the page. This
gremlin, it appears, is controlling for the perception that psychologists
say humans are controlling behavior. I can think of no other explanation.

Jeff

37

[From Bruce Gregory (990830.1433 EDT)]

Rick Marken (990830.0950)

Jeff Vancouver (990824.1420 EST) --

> Of course there was Wiener and Ashby. But I suppose we should
> not go there.

Matthew Heaney (990828) --

> What is your objection to Wiener and Ashby?

I think this came up in the context of the discussion of who
introduced the negative feedback concept into psychology. I
think Jeff was suggesting (correctly) that Wiener and Ashby
should be included as legitimate ancestors of PCT. I think
Jeff thought that we "should not go there" (to a discussion
of the contributions of Wiener and Ashby), not because he
objected to Wiener and/or Ashby but because he guessed
(correctly again) that I would point out that Wiener and Ashby
(like all other precursor's to PCT) missed one essential little
fact about how control systems work: they control perceptual
representations of external aspects of the environment relative
to their own reference specifications for those perceptions.
It's this fact about how control systems work (control of
perception) that Bill Powers explained in _Behavior: The
Control of Perception_. It's an understanding of this fact
about control system operation that makes it possible to
apply control theory appropriately to behavior (as Bill
Powers did with PCT). When control theory is applied correctly
to behavior you can see that behavior is the control of
perception, not (as Wiener, Ashby and the psychological
establishment in general believe) vice versa.

Needless to say I agree with you completely. But once again I'll point
out that PCT and the rest of the world use the word "control" in
different ways (as is evident by the fact that control engineers call a
controlled variable an "output". I suspect this is a significant part of
the problem. That's why I am a voice in the wilderness calling "input
stabilization"..."input stabilization"...

Bruce Gregory