[From Fred Nickols (2013.07.05.1430 EDT)]
I was poking around re Carver and Scheier and came across the attachment. They cite Bill but it seems clear to me that either they don’t really understand control or they are just paying lip service to it in order to bump up their citations.
Early on, this gem caught my attention:
“In this article we proceed from the position that the bodies of thought previously listed provide new angles on what is known, provide conceptual bases for new methods and new questions, but do not suggest a need to abandon pre-existing ways of thinking (p.304).” Oh well, so much for a paradigm shift.
What really made me question their grasp of control theory is this comment on page 309 where they are referring to physical movements being influenced by previous movements. They write:
“This lets the motor system make double use of the computations that were needed to do the first action.” Computations? Gee whiz, there is a ghost in the machine and the machine is the brain and it’s a computer.
Actually, a comment they make earlier is also revealing:
“People spend much of their time trying to keep their behavior in line with their goals.” Huh?
I apologize if this particular piece by Carver and Scheier has already been dissected on CSGNet. I suspect it has.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room
Kindle Book: Tools for Knowledge Workers
Control Processes and Self-Organization - Carver and Sheier 2002.pdf (118 KB)
[From Rick Marken (2013.07.05.1800)]
Fred Nickols (2013.07.05.1430 EDT)–
Thanks for this Fred. If the B:CP Course actually works I might like to add a final week on what’s wrong with the Carver-Scheier “self regulation” type versions of PCT and their recent paper that you sent would be a perfect text!
Best
Rick
···
I was poking around re Carver and Scheier and came across the attachment. They cite Bill but it seems clear to me that either they dont really understand control or they are just paying lip service to it in order to bump up their citations.
Early on, this gem caught my attention:
In this article we proceed from the position that the bodies of thought previously listed provide new angles on what is known, provide conceptual bases for new methods and new questions, but do not suggest a need to abandon pre-existing ways of thinking (p.304). Oh well, so much for a paradigm shift.
What really made me question their grasp of control theory is this comment on page 309 where they are referring to physical movements being influenced by previous movements. They write:
This lets the motor system make double use of the computations that were needed to do the first action. Computations? Gee whiz, there is a ghost in the machine and the machine is the brain and its a computer.
Actually, a comment they make earlier is also revealing:
People spend much of their time trying to keep their behavior in line with their goals. Huh?
I apologize if this particular piece by Carver and Scheier has already been dissected on CSGNet. I suspect it has.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
The Knowledge Workers Tool Room
Kindle Book: Tools for Knowledge Workers
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
Hi Rick and Fred,
maybe this text from Mary Powers, which I finally found, should be helpfull…I think it’s supperb for your support in analyzing seff-regulation and so on…not only from Carver/Scheier, but from a much more broad view on psychology…
Best,
Boris
Direction_for_psychology.pdf (44.3 KB)
···
----- Original Message -----
From:
Richard Marken
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: Carver & Scheier
[From Rick Marken (2013.07.05.1800)]
Fred Nickols (2013.07.05.1430 EDT)–
Thanks for this Fred. If the B:CP Course actually works I might like to add a final week on what’s wrong with the Carver-Scheier “self regulation” type versions of PCT and their recent paper that you sent would be a perfect text!
Best
Rick
I was poking around re Carver and Scheier and came across the attachment. They cite Bill but it seems clear to me that either they don’t really understand control or they are just paying lip service to it in order to bump up their citations.
Early on, this gem caught my attention:
“In this article we proceed from the position that the bodies of thought previously listed provide new angles on what is known, provide conceptual bases for new methods and new questions, but do not suggest a need to abandon pre-existing ways of thinking (p.304).” Oh well, so much for a paradigm shift.
What really made me question their grasp of control theory is this comment on page 309 where they are referring to physical movements being influenced by previous movements. They write:
“This lets the motor system make double use of the computations that were needed to do the first action.” Computations? Gee whiz, there is a ghost in the machine and the machine is the brain and it’s a computer.
Actually, a comment they make earlier is also revealing:
“People spend much of their time trying to keep their behavior in line with their goals.” Huh?
I apologize if this particular piece by Carver and Scheier has already been dissected on CSGNet. I suspect it has.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room
Kindle Book: Tools for Knowledge Workers
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Rick Marken (2013.07.07.0950)]
Hi Rick and Fred,
maybe this text from Mary Powers, which I finally found, should be helpfull…I think it’s supperb for your support in analyzing seff-regulation and so on…not only from Carver/Scheier, but from a much more broad view on psychology…
Yes, that’s a beauty. Thanks, Boris.
Best
Rick
···
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Best,
Boris
----- Original Message -----
From:
Richard Marken
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: Carver & Scheier
[From Rick Marken (2013.07.05.1800)]
Fred Nickols (2013.07.05.1430 EDT)–
Thanks for this Fred. If the B:CP Course actually works I might like to add a final week on what’s wrong with the Carver-Scheier “self regulation” type versions of PCT and their recent paper that you sent would be a perfect text!
Best
Rick
I was poking around re Carver and Scheier and came across the attachment. They cite Bill but it seems clear to me that either they dont really understand control or they are just paying lip service to it in order to bump up their citations.
Early on, this gem caught my attention:
In this article we proceed from the position that the bodies of thought previously listed provide new angles on what is known, provide conceptual bases for new methods and new questions, but do not suggest a need to abandon pre-existing ways of thinking (p.304). Oh well, so much for a paradigm shift.
What really made me question their grasp of control theory is this comment on page 309 where they are referring to physical movements being influenced by previous movements. They write:
This lets the motor system make double use of the computations that were needed to do the first action. Computations? Gee whiz, there is a ghost in the machine and the machine is the brain and its a computer.
Actually, a comment they make earlier is also revealing:
People spend much of their time trying to keep their behavior in line with their goals. Huh?
I apologize if this particular piece by Carver and Scheier has already been dissected on CSGNet. I suspect it has.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
The Knowledge Workers Tool Room
Kindle Book: Tools for Knowledge Workers
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
Hi Rick,
I thought you would like it :)).
As I think Mary gave a really good description of what was going on in those times, I thought maybe we could use infromations (which I think are still actual, nothing changed in self-regulation and on-going stilling of work) and maybe stop transforming PCT to “self-regulation” theories. I think that sooner or later they will come to the final point where somebody will inmvent “PCT” as that will be the logical consequence of the development of Psychology. I think they have quite some time to that point, but till then the original author could be forgotten.
It seems like psychology LCS work the same way as other LCS and act on disturbances so to maintain their perceptual stabiity on all levels, probably with final goal “successfull self in psychology”. This could mean that transformations are done in the manner that emphasize sucesful self with disqualifying some authors or as Erling put it : “…act as control systems to remove the impact of disturbances, & thereby to preserve the integrity of their volume”.
Maybe somebody could continue work Mary started and trace books which followed Carver/Scheier books or which books used them as the reference. And maybe we could try again at APA to tell “all” the psychologist to respect sources and preserve the original Control theory.
Am I dreaming, imagining something what can’t be done ?
Best,
Boris
···
----- Original Message -----
From:
Richard Marken
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: Carver & Scheier
[From Rick Marken (2013.07.07.0950)]
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Hi Rick and Fred,
maybe this text from Mary Powers, which I finally found, should be helpfull...I think it's supperb for your support in analyzing seff-regulation and so on...not only from Carver/Scheier, but from a much more broad view on psychology...
Yes, that’s a beauty. Thanks, Boris.
Best
Rick
Best,
Boris
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Marken
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: Carver & Scheier
[From Rick Marken (2013.07.05.1800)]
Fred Nickols (2013.07.05.1430 EDT)--
Thanks for this Fred. If the B:CP Course actually works I might like to add a final week on what's wrong with the Carver-Scheier "self regulation" type versions of PCT and their recent paper that you sent would be a perfect text!
Best
Rick
I was poking around re Carver and Scheier and came across the attachment. They cite Bill but it seems clear to me that either they don’t really understand control or they are just paying lip service to it in order to bump up their citations.
Early on, this gem caught my attention:
“In this article we proceed from the position that the bodies of thought previously listed provide new angles on what is known, provide conceptual bases for new methods and new questions, but do not suggest a need to abandon pre-existing ways of thinking (p.304).” Oh well, so much for a paradigm shift.
What really made me question their grasp of control theory is this comment on page 309 where they are referring to physical movements being influenced by previous movements. They write:
“This lets the motor system make double use of the computations that were needed to do the first action.” Computations? Gee whiz, there is a ghost in the machine and the machine is the brain and it’s a computer.
Actually, a comment they make earlier is also revealing:
“People spend much of their time trying to keep their behavior in line with their goals.” Huh?
I apologize if this particular piece by Carver and Scheier has already been dissected on CSGNet. I suspect it has.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, CPT
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
The Knowledge Workers’ Tool Room
Kindle Book: Tools for Knowledge Workers
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Rick Marken (2013.07.09.0915)]
···
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
BH: Hi Rick,
I thought you would like it :)).
As I think Mary gave a really good description of what was going on in those times…
Maybe somebody could continue work Mary started and trace books which followed Carver/Scheier books or which books used them as the reference. And maybe we could try again at APA to tell “all” the psychologist to respect sources and preserve the original Control theory.
Am I dreaming, imagining something what can’t be done ?
RM: What Mary did was to “set the record straight”; I think it is a good idea to do this whenever the opportunity presents itself. But if you believe that doing this will change people’s mind then you are, indeed, dreaming. As you said in your post, PCT itself shows that people who are controlling for perceiving “traditional psychologies” as valuable are going to treat a theory that says that such psychologies are all wrong (though not in so many words) as a disturbance. I think it’s important to set the record straight on PCT – and to keep doing research that tests PCT in order to demonstrate it’s merits. But I think it’s important to keep in mind that you are doing this for the sake of those who are willing (and able) to learn PCT. Those who are controlling for the merits of existing psychologies are not going to change their minds; and they will readily fend off all demonstrations that they are wrong. Trying to get people to get PCT right who don’t want to get it right is a fool’s errand.
Best
Rick
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
Hi Rick,
it must be that we didn’t understand. I didn’t write about “cahnging other minds” to PCT. I just wanted to say that we could maybe persuade APA to make more understandable how sources should be cite. That’s how I “persuade” Carver and Scheier that they should cite literature as it is demanded by APA. They have very sharp criteria. That’s why they accepted my arguments where literature was not followed as it should be.
From this “incident” I learned also very interesting lesson. As I was talking to Charles Carver he didn’t understand (or didn’t want to understand) what I’m telling him about using the literature and diagrams with wrong citattion. But obviously he did understand when others on APA told him what is right and what is not about using literature and citting. I hope we understand now ?
Best,
Boris
···
----- Original Message -----
From:
Richard Marken
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Carver & Scheier
[From Rick Marken (2013.07.09.0915)]
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
BH: Hi Rick,
I thought you would like it :)).
As I think Mary gave a really good description of what was going on in those times...
Maybe somebody could continue work Mary started and trace books which followed Carver/Scheier books or which books used them as the reference. And maybe we could try again at APA to tell "all" the psychologist to respect sources and preserve the original Control theory.
Am I dreaming, imagining something what can't be done ?
RM: What Mary did was to “set the record straight”; I think it is a good idea to do this whenever the opportunity presents itself. But if you believe that doing this will change people’s mind then you are, indeed, dreaming. As you said in your post, PCT itself shows that people who are controlling for perceiving “traditional psychologies” as valuable are going to treat a theory that says that such psychologies are all wrong (though not in so many words) as a disturbance. I think it’s important to set the record straight on PCT – and to keep doing research that tests PCT in order to demonstrate it’s merits. But I think it’s important to keep in mind that you are doing this for the sake of those who are willing (and able) to learn PCT. Those who are controlling for the merits of existing psychologies are not going to change their minds; and they will readily fend off all demonstrations that they are wrong. Trying to get people to get PCT right who don’t want to get it right is a fool’s errand.
Best
Rick
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Rick Marken (2013.07.09.1150)]
Hi Rick,
it must be that we didn’t understand. I didn’t write about “cahnging other minds” to PCT. I just wanted to say that we could maybe persuade APA to make more understandable how sources should be cite.
RM: OK, great! I don’t know how you persuade people to be more “understandable” – and it doesn’t sounds like anything I would want to do – but if you want to do it, great.
That’s how I “persuade” Carver and Scheier that they should cite literature as it is demanded by APA. They have very sharp criteria. That’s why they accepted my arguments where literature was not followed as it should be.
From this “incident” I learned also very interesting lesson. As I was talking to Charles Carver he didn’t understand (or didn’t want to understand) what I’m telling him about using the literature and diagrams with wrong citattion. But obviously he did understand when others on APA told him what is right and what is not about using literature and citting. I hope we understand now ?
RM: Yes, I think so. Carver and Scheier apparently made an incorrect reference to a diagram. I think that should merit an “errata” in the publication.
Best
Rick
···
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Best,
Boris
----- Original Message -----
From:
Richard Marken
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Carver & Scheier
[From Rick Marken (2013.07.09.0915)]
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
BH: Hi Rick,
I thought you would like it :)).
As I think Mary gave a really good description of what was going on in those times...
Maybe somebody could continue work Mary started and trace books which followed Carver/Scheier books or which books used them as the reference. And maybe we could try again at APA to tell "all" the psychologist to respect sources and preserve the original Control theory.
Am I dreaming, imagining something what can't be done ?
RM: What Mary did was to “set the record straight”; I think it is a good idea to do this whenever the opportunity presents itself. But if you believe that doing this will change people’s mind then you are, indeed, dreaming. As you said in your post, PCT itself shows that people who are controlling for perceiving “traditional psychologies” as valuable are going to treat a theory that says that such psychologies are all wrong (though not in so many words) as a disturbance. I think it’s important to set the record straight on PCT – and to keep doing research that tests PCT in order to demonstrate it’s merits. But I think it’s important to keep in mind that you are doing this for the sake of those who are willing (and able) to learn PCT. Those who are controlling for the merits of existing psychologies are not going to change their minds; and they will readily fend off all demonstrations that they are wrong. Trying to get people to get PCT right who don’t want to get it right is a fool’s errand.
Best
Rick
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
Hi Rick,
well I tried. I wanted just to help. When I was reading Volumes about “Self-regulation” I saw many mistakes. In one Volume the whole Bill’s Hierarchy was asigned to another author. And so on. Well I’ll not bother any more if you don’t. It will be as you wanted it to be…
Best,
Boris
···
----- Original Message -----
From:
Richard Marken
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: Carver & Scheier
[From Rick Marken (2013.07.09.1150)]
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Hi Rick,
it must be that we didn't understand. I didn't write about "cahnging other minds" to PCT. I just wanted to say that we could maybe persuade APA to make more understandable how sources should be cite.
RM: OK, great! I don’t know how you persuade people to be more “understandable” – and it doesn’t sounds like anything I would want to do – but if you want to do it, great.
That's how I "persuade" Carver and Scheier that they should cite literature as it is demanded by APA. They have very sharp criteria. That's why they accepted my arguments where literature was not followed as it should be.
From this "incident" I learned also very interesting lesson. As I was talking to Charles Carver he didn't understand (or didn't want to understand) what I'm telling him about using the literature and diagrams with wrong citattion. But obviously he did understand when others on APA told him what is right and what is not about using literature and citting. I hope we understand now ?
RM: Yes, I think so. Carver and Scheier apparently made an incorrect reference to a diagram. I think that should merit an “errata” in the publication.
Best
Rick
Best,
Boris
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Marken
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Carver & Scheier
[From Rick Marken (2013.07.09.0915)]
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
BH: Hi Rick,
I thought you would like it :)).
As I think Mary gave a really good description of what was going on in those times...
Maybe somebody could continue work Mary started and trace books which followed Carver/Scheier books or which books used them as the reference. And maybe we could try again at APA to tell "all" the psychologist to respect sources and preserve the original Control theory.
Am I dreaming, imagining something what can't be done ?
RM: What Mary did was to "set the record straight"; I think it is a good idea to do this whenever the opportunity presents itself. But if you believe that doing this will change people's mind then you are, indeed, dreaming. As you said in your post, PCT itself shows that people who are controlling for perceiving "traditional psychologies" as valuable are going to treat a theory that says that such psychologies are all wrong (though not in so many words) as a disturbance. I think it's important to set the record straight on PCT -- and to keep doing research that tests PCT in order to demonstrate it's merits. But I think it's important to keep in mind that you are doing this for the sake of those who are willing (and able) to learn PCT. Those who are controlling for the merits of existing psychologies are not going to change their minds; and they will readily fend off all demonstrations that they are wrong. Trying to get people to get PCT right who don't want to get it right is a fool's errand.
Best
Rick
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Rick Marken (2013.07.10.0800)]
···
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:
Hi Rick,
well I tried. I wanted just to help. When I was reading Volumes about “Self-regulation” I saw many mistakes. In one Volume the whole Bill’s Hierarchy was asigned to another author. And so on. Well I’ll not bother any more if you don’t. It will be as you wanted it to be…
RM: I didn’t mean to discourage you from correcting what you see as mistakes i the self-regulation literature. I certainly favor your doing that. I do it all the time; the mistakes in the self-regulation literature have to do with the problems noted in CH 1 of B:CP that are not being discussed in the course. The big failure of Carver and Scheier, for example, is that they talk all about goals and purposes but their research is based on the old causal model of behavior. Their discussion of the theory seems OK to me (at least it seemed so when I read their book in 1981). They just don’t know how the theory maps to actual behavior. So their research on self-regulation looks for the causes of behavior, rather than it’s purposes (controlled variables). I think it would be tough to convince the APA to prevent that kind of mistake; the APA wouldn’t see it as a mistake.
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
From Fred Nickols (981015.1818)] --
Rick Marken (981012.0800)
John Anderson (981011.1815) --
AUTHOR: Carver, Charles S.; Lawrence, John W.; Scheier, Michael F.
... people engage in a continual process of establishing goals and
intentions, and adjusting current patterns of behavior so as
to more closely match these values, using informational feedback
as a guide to progress
To an old cynic like me it sounds like Carver et al are saying
that it's "patterns of behavior" that are controlled (made to
match intentions) and that "informational feedback" is used as a
guide to seeing how well one is progressing towards getting these
behavior patterns to match intentions. But I imagine Bruce Abbott
would be able to set me straight and show me that "informational
feedback" is just another name for "controlled variable" so that
Carver et al are really talking about control of perceptual
variables;-)
I think I agree with your read here, or almost. It could also
be the case that they're saying patterns of behavior are adjusted
to control actual conditions in relation to intentions, with
feedback (i.e., information about actual in relation to intended
conditions serving to not only to close the gap but to inform
progress (which comes awfully close to controlling perceptions).
My aim here is not to apologize for Carver & Scheier or to build
a bridge where none exists. Instead, it strikes me that there is
an opening here to gain some ground. That's my intuitive reaction
and I trust my intuition; however, I'll give it some more thought
before pressing it any farther.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm
nickols@worldnet.att.net
(609) 490-0095