[From Bill Powers (930921.0830 MDT)]
Rick Marken (930920.1300) --
No one said that "ALL apparent S-R connections are illusions".
I said that, in a negative beedback system (where a perception
is know to be controlled) the relationship between disturbace
and output (and between perception and output for that matter)
reflects the feedback function, not the system function.
OK, that takes care of a couple of dozen behaviors, the ones
we've actually modeled and shown to involve control. What about
the rest?
Dag (and you, for that matter) seem to be taking me to task for
saying that an S-R explanation of CONTROL would be hogwash.
No, it's for saying that an S-R explanation of BEHAVIOR is
hogwash. Those behaviors we have shown to involve CONTROL are, I
believe, best explained by the PCT model and not explained at all
by either a stimulus-driven or a command-driven model. But our
data base is small.
That sounds great but how are you going to get people to accept
"the test" as a valid method if you don't explain why it might
not be a waste of time? I don't see how you can make a case for
"the test" without explaining how control works and why the
behavioral illusion might exist.
The Test reveals a phenomenon. No model is implied. The Rubber
Band Game can demonstrate the phenomenon -- it embodies the Test
if you go about it systematically. You don't have to explain
control theory to point out what is happening in the Rubber Band
Game. Maybe we've been missing an obvious kind of paper to write:
simply demonstrate a control phenomenon and show how a PCT model
of it works. In a lot of our previous attempts we've assumed that
it's necessary to take some problem that others are writing about
and show the PCT interpretation of it. So far all that has
accomplished is to challenge the others to assert their own
interpretations more forcefully.
I think (based on my conversatinos with these people) that they
are firmly convinced that the input variable (the objective
discrepency between target and cursor) is what causes the
outputs they measure. Even if you point out the possibility of
adjustable references or the fact that what subjects perceive
is always influenced by what they do, the input-output view of
the process wins out; back to IV-DV research.
Then maybe we should present an experiment in which the target-
cursor distance has to be controlled at some value other than
zero.
How about this: display two spots, stationary, separated by some
distance. Below that, have a moving target that the participant
is to track with a cursor -- but keeping the cursor at a distance
from the target equal to the distance of the pair of dots. Then
put a slow disturbance in that varies the distance between the
dots, so the person has to vary the reference distance in the
tracking task so the tracking separation matches the dot
separation.
I don't think you'll convince anyone to invest the time and
care needed to perform "the test" properly (or take seriously
someone else's results from "the test") until you convince them
that observed input MAY REALLY NOT be the cause of output --
even when it looks that way (the behavioral illusion).
The causal relationship of the input to the output is a
conclusion, a description, and has no bearing on the way you
model the situation. I think we've been sucked into an argument
that has no relevance to PCT -- that is, the argument over what
causes what. In a system diagram, there is no such thing as
causation: there are only functional dependencies that run in
parallel and in loops. Why would anyone want to know "the cause"
of a behavior? Only so as to predict or control that behavior. If
you can get hold of the cause, you can manipulate the effect. But
in PCT there is nothing you can get hold of in that way without
disrupting the system. I say that we should just ignore causal
arguments and concentrate on developing system models that
explain observations. If someone insists that inputs really cause
outputs, we should just say "Maybe so. Now can we proceed with
the analysis?"
···
----------------------------------------------------------------
(i.n.kurtzer930920.1915)
Patience, Isaac. You're looking at an important phenomenon of
human behavior: belief and how it comes to exist. What would you
teach students so they would see what is wrong with what they're
being taught -- even about PCT? How did YOU get there? When
you're 20 years older and have a bunch of students under your
thumb, the lessons you're learning now will become the most
important part of the education you give those students. So study
what's going on very carefully. The phenomenon you're
participating in is behind many of the world's woes, not to
mention those of the behavioral sciences.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Andrews (930921.1505) --
Perhaps the reason that the `manual controllers' are
uninterested in r is that in their applications, it is obvious
what r is, so there is no need to figure out how to identify
it. Similarly with control systems engineering, as discussed
by Hans Blom.
This is a generous view, but I think you give the manual control
experts too much benefit of the doubt. If they recognized that r
is variable, they would make provision for its variations in
their models and specify that they are studying the special case
of r = 0. I have NEVER seen that said. I think that Rick is
right: they are not aware of the role of perception in defining
controlled variables, or of the role of internal reference
signals in selecting a particular state for those variables. They
are naive realists: the error between target and cursor exists in
the objective environment where it is "obvious." They don't see
these as perceptions of their own, so it never occurs to them to
see them as perceptions of the experimental subject, too. If you
accept the world of your own experience as existing completely
outside yourself, there is no way to grasp the basic principle of
PCT.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all,
Bill P.