CHUCK TUCKER [920923]
TOPICS: War on Drugs; Suggestions for "Elephant" paper; What
Innards?; Influence and Control, Again and Again; CLOSED LOOP
CLOSED LOOP GW 920919
My vote is for an issue on "Influence and Control" (seconding
Hugh's vote actually) but if I can influence you Greg (which I
can't prove that I have even after you produce the issue !?!) I
would suggest that it be arranged as a conversation between Bill
and you with whatever "comments" by others that seem to be
relevant to the matters mentioned in the conversation. The
conversational format would show the "linkages". You may want
to delete some of the repetition and select those statements
which most clearly (to you, of course) make the point. Perhaps
a preface to the issue would give a reader an explanation of
the style and format used and point out that the original posts
are available on CSGNet. Finally, a summary statement by you
and Bill about the conversation and the major points each of you
have been try to make might end the issue. I think it would be
a nice monograph to show others the central ideas of PCT. Since
many others have been silent during this conversation the next
issue of CLOSED LOOP could be composed of comments by others on
the net and elsewhere about this conversation. These two issues
of CLOSED LOOP could be then turned into another CSG publiction
in book form. Sounds like a great idea to me!
INFLUENCE AND CONTROL WTP 920918.0800; 18.1600; 19.0900; 20.0999
AGAIN AND AGAIN GW 890918-3; 19.0800; 19-2; 20
I have reached the tenative judgement that there is no way for
one human being to influence (in Greg's terms) another human
being and still maintain the principles and processes outlined
in the HPCT or PCT model as proposed by Bill Powers. Bill has
been extremely consistent and even precise about his model even
though he states quite often that it is just a model and still
has to be tested; I can find no recent significant modifications
(except the addition of level names, which I usually collapse)
in his model. The latest attempt by Greg to discuss "linkages"
(along with comments by Bill about his cat) convinced me that
influence was NOT possible in the model (by the way, I think my
statements about "taking" as in "taking the role or attitude of
another", "taking another into account", and such notions as
"socialization", "acculturation," "learning", are very similar
to Greg's "linkages").
Greg keeps insisting that THE TEST will demonstrate that person
A has influenced person B to control for X. But that is not so,
THE TEST only shows (if done repeatedly and systematically with
careful records) what B is controlling for BUT IT CAN'T SHOW
THAT B TOOK X FROM A. A can only say that the X that B is
controlling for seems to be exactly like the X I use and asked
(told, demanded, etc.) B to use but since B is now using X it
belongs to the "control system" of B and no longer to A even
though A might use it also. Now this seems like a very "picky"
point to make but it is crucial to PCT: my perceptions are mine
even though they may look exactly like the perceptions that you
say are yours. Runkel writes of "borrowing" (I would say
"taking" again) reference signals from another but still when I
am using it it is mine and it may become yours (again?) to use
when I "return" it or you "borrow" it back.
The PCT model has to insist on this autonomy or it will very
quickly lose its differences from all other theories (as Rick
indicates in his "elephant" paper). Thus, anything that looks
like a "collective social act" is actually two or more persons
controlling their own individual conduct in what appears to each
and every party to action as influencing the others.
NB: This is a "higher level" judgement by the parties not a
"lower level" one since a "lower level" analysis, precisely done,
should show a tremendous variation in actions of the parties. I
also believe that as we associate with others we are told
(either from a S-R or another perspective) that we SHOULD
AND DO INFLUENCE EACH OTHER.
The "moving the bed" example strikes home (no pun intended)
since I just helped my daughter move furniture from Columbia to
Baltimore (yes, others did look at us funny as we carried the
bed up I 95). But, in most instances of moving a piece of
furniture I have established a "division of labor" where one
person "carries" the major load while the others "guide" or at
least "don't resist". But, even in these cases I think that
careful analysis would show that each party to the "collective
act" is acting on their own.
If my tenative judgment (i.e., that influence [A affects or
determines what B controls for] is not possible between human
beings if they are negative feedback control systems) is turned
into a "warranted assertion" with testing and evidence the
question arises: Is the PCT (or HPCT) model useful for
collective social action? That is an important question to
answer for those of us who have a concern for human group life,
social life, collective behavior or even Society. Maybe a new
model has to be constructed !?!
WHAT INNARDS? GW 920918-2
Thanks Greg for the statements from Skinner which indicate to me
that he (and perhaps other behaviorists) did not consider the
"innards". I guess I just find it strange that someone would
not wonder more than he did about the contribution of the
"innards" to behavior but people I pay attention to (especially
myself) firmly believe that the CNS is important to say nothing
of the liver and bladder.
SUGGESTIONS FOR "ELEPHANT" RM 920918.1330
You are disturbing the readers of your paper that don't already
firmly believe in PCT and you know this; the evidence is
overwhelming (and has been for years). Now you can either find
out what they are "controlling for" (usually the S-R model) and
"control" them indirectly by "rubber-banding" them or you can
find a more direct way to say (again) that all other models
(lets pretend they have models for the moment) of behavior
presume PCT but none of them clearly recognize it and if they
did they would have available to them a whole host of empirical
studies which would make their efforts all they have wished for:
a true science of human behavior.
I would suggest that you get rid of the "elephant" metaphor (as
I mentioned before - I think it is distracting) and use the same
approach that John Dewey used in his 1896 "Reflex Arc" paper to
show (with the vocabulary and technology of our day) the same
thing he was trying to show: the human being is a negative
feedback control system!!!
WAR ON DRUGS RM 920918.1330
I agree - the legalization of drugs (like alcohol is now) still
is a method of forcing others to control their own drug using
actions in a particular way (by decreasing them). The hope is
that with legalization there would be a reduction of conflict in
the "drug war" (raids by DEA agents and gang members killing
each other) and that it would make it possible for "controllees"
(see above note on influence) to reorganize themselves to reduce
their drug use. But it does not eliminate all conflict or
violence.
What do you think of my other suggestion - suspend all laws and
law enforcement with regard to these special drugs. Perhaps, we
could extend it to all drugs by eliminating the FDA and allowing
anyone to self any substance they wished w/o any regulations or
laws at all (the classic libertarian [actually this is Szasz's
position on drugs and suicide] position)!?!
If these are not adequate ways to solve the problem (which I
admit they are not), then what would you suggest from a PCT
perspective? NB: this might be the sort of thing your readers
want from you in your "elephant" paper: practical solutions to
problems.
Regards,
Chuck