From Greg Williams (930328)
Bill Powers (930327.0700)
My reason for preferring modeling is that I like
explanations that fit the observations as much of the time as
possible, preferably all of the time.
This appears to be a profession of FAITH, in the following way: you
see that the method of modeling individuals in some of the "hard"
sciences (especially physics) does indeed result in "explanations that
fit the observations" often with high precision, then you conjecture
that similarly high precision will be achievable by applying the
method to high-level human behaviors "in the field" (extending far
beyond laboratory tracking experiments). But such precision is NOT
currently possible.
if modeling didn't help to produce explanations
that work, I wouldn't like modeling much, either.
With regard to modeling high-level human behavior, as I said in my
last post, the verdict is still out about whether the explanations
produced (some time in the future) will "work." By comparing what
actually works rather poorly RIGHT NOW (statistical description of
human behavior) with what does NOT work RIGHT NOW (individual modeling
of complex human behavior), you open the door to charges of arrogance.
Building a better mousetrap and showing it off is certainly not
arrogance, but the temptation for an observer to see arrogance is
great if someone touts the "better" mousetrap which doesn't yet exist
and demeans the existing mousetraps RELATIVE TO the non-existent
"better" one.
We have the same problems almost everywhere that statistics is
used in a way that affects people's lives, whether it be in
psychotherapy or scholastic tests or job screening tests. The
knowledge is used in situations where it is actually invalid and
in ways that are actually harmful. That I what I object to,
loudly and strongly. You can call that arrogance if you wish.
That kind of objection doesn't appear arrogant to me. It is only when
it is coupled to unsupportable claims that your approach is better --
especially if it is supposed to be better with respect to the goals of
those happily using statistical description (nonfallaciously, as
public health workers do when they want to see whether a disease
incidence is going down in a population, and don't care WHICH
individuals are infected) -- that I say it is arrogant. Arrogant
individuals make unsupportable claims of self-importance: they profess
to have a better mousetrap than the others, but it turns out that they
don't even have a mousetrap. Of course, someday they might actually
build a mousetrap and it might actually be better than all others
(with respect to their own goals and even the goals of others) and
will have a good reason to claim legitimate, non-arrogant self-
importance.
You can acknowledge that each person selects goals
privately for private reasons, and has every natural right to do
so, without passing a law that prevents one person from trying,
by nonviolent means, to get others to see an advantage to
themselves in adopting a different goal.
Yes. But some ways of trying to get others to see an advantage appear
to be more fruitful than others. That probably sounds pretty
statistical to you, but you can try an experiment to see how good the
statistics are: stand on a street corner in Durango and (if you can
make it that long) say to 100 passersby, in turn: "You asshole! My
theory about how you work is better than your theory!!"
If people believe that certain goals and ways of achieving them will
impress others, is there anything wrong with letting them know that
you, at least, are not impressed?
And then what? I expect that several will then ask something to the
effect: "Well, what do you propose that is more impressive?" You'd
better be prepared with something THEY will find impressive,
notwithstanding that YOU find it more impressive than their stuff.
If someone expresses an opinion about something of general importance,
is there anything wrong with stating that you have a definitely
different opinion?
No. But then you have to back up your opinion with evidence (here
comes the hard part) IMPRESSIVE TO THE OTHER PERSON. Otherwise, you
will sound arrogant.
I get the impression that you interpret PCT as saying that people
should adopt a strictly hands-off attitude toward other people's
goals, attitudes, and opinions.
No. And I don't think that PCT says one "shouldn't" be arrogant (or
even deluded) -- PCT isn't ethically prescriptive. But if you are
trying to persuade scientists, arrogance (unsupportable claims of
"I've got a better way to do it than you") doesn't work very well.
Yes, more statistics; some scientists no doubt can be swayed by
arrogance. LOTS of rock fans appear to cherish arrogance at certain
heavy metal concerts. And delusion also can persuade some folks, too.
Witness Waco. It seems that the arrogant and the deluded need to
choose their ausiences carefully, if they are to be persuasive.
ยทยทยท
-----
Before we get to the challenge business, I want to express my hope
that you will say a bit more about whether or not PCT is (or will
ever be) appropriate for predicting behavior (i.e., with .99+
correlations), as well as for understanding (I assume, post hoc only)
behavior. Is the most that can be expected from individual modeling of
high-level human behavior in the field an after-the-fact analysis? I
note that individual modeling in physics is valued (especially by
engineers) for its ability to predict (i.e., that this spacecraft will
take this path). Why should prediction be downplayed when it comes to
high-level human behavior? Are tracking experiment predictions ("one
whole minute," even after several months) to be the limits of PCT
predictions?
-----
Passing grade? Why not make it as high as possible? Let's say
that I will have met your challenge if you agree that I
understand some behavior of yours and what it is being used to
control.
Fine.
A couple of questions first. Will you be trying to help me
understand a behavior of yours and what it is being used to
control?
Yes.
You have issued a challenge to me to explain what variable a
behavior of yours is being used to control. Issuing the challenge
is clearly a behavior of yours; what is not immediately apparent
is the perception in you that is being controlled by issuing this
challenge. So let me try the easiest way first:
What is the effect you intend to produce by issuing this
challenge?
I don't know. Perhaps you have a way to get me to say that I "realize"
some particular effect is the one I intended? The question then is:
how do we know that was REALLY the effect I intended (yesterday), and
not just some sort of after-the-fact fiction than seems to make sense?
How do we avoid "just-so" opining? One way I can think of is to
analyze my history and current environment and then predict what I'll
do next -- that would be an impressive feat, if it could be repeated
at will. But post hoc analysis leaves the same nagging doubt in both
the theorist's and subject's minds as psychoanalytic "explanations":
how much simply SOUNDS reasonable (to both parties)?
As ever,
Greg