Cells, People, PCT Reseach

[From Rick Marken (930615.1300)]

Bill Powers (930615.0900 MDT)--

The cells in a body (for example,
liver cells) receive reference signals from superordinate systems

Excellent discussion of the cell analogy. I just want to point out that
my discussion was based on 1) a somewhat mythical physiology
that was developed to 2) give Hans and Oded the benefit of the doubt;
that is, my model of the cells was based on accepting the analogy of
cells to people. There is no outside access to human reference signals
so I assumed no outside access to cell reference signals. Given this
assumption, my description of how collectives of such autonomous cells
could be "used" by a higher order control system is correct. But your
example (where the cells recieve reference signals from the higher level
system) is surely a more accurate description of how collectives of cells
(we both picked the liver -- what could we be thinking of?) are used as part
of the hierarchical control process.

Richard Thurman (930611.1430)]

I think what I need
is a few more ideas on how move from researching lower level skills
to doing higher levels.

I think this is a LOT easier than I used to think it was. Let's start with
some examples from the current literature of what you might consider
to be studies of higher level skills. How about the Tversky type decision
making stuff? Or some problem solving experiments. If conventional
methodology can address "higher level" skills than PCT methodology
(which is really only subtlely different) should be able to handle it too.

Also I have to admit a weakness in moving from a more traditional
group-means-statistical approach to a modeling based approach. Am I the
only one, or are others on the net struggling with a change in research
paradigms?

I had (have?) the same problem. The problem is really that we have
learned that "research" means controlling for a particular result (a
big difference between means of groups of numbers, correlations
between measures of variables, etc). And we have been taught how
to control for those results. Among the most powerful means we
have of controlling for these perceptions of "good research results"
is statistics. Once you've learned to play with numbers using statistics
it's hard to stop -- especially if you get good at it (and I got to be VERY
good at it) -- because you are IN CONTROL.

Learning to do PCT research requires some reorganization -- which means
losing control for a while with no guarantee that you will get it back. My
reorganization process has led me to focus on "stick wiggling" research;
I can control the results of that pretty well now. But I would like to
explore
the possibility of doing QUANTITATIVE research on higher levels of control;
I have done it a little (when I was a professor and had students who would
do the research for me).

One thing I can tell you about research on higher level variables; it will be
an ITERATIVE PROCESS. The first thing to give up when you do PCT research
is the idea that you can sit in your arm chair and dream up the great
experimentum cruxis. When you actually get down to the business of doing
experiments, things will almost surely NOT come out as you expected. This
has to be treated as a problem with one's own conception of the experiment
(the controlled variable, what disturbes it, what the result of disturbance
should be, etc) -- not a job for statistical cleansing. Keep fiddling with
things until you get HIGHLY RELIABLE results. Then you will know that you
have actually discovered a FACT about human behavior.

But try not to get frustrated when you start exploring PCT research. At
least you will be getting a first hand look at the process of reorganization;
the reorganization of your own concept of what it means to do good
research.

Best

Rick