[From Richard Thurman (940603.1000)]
Rick Marken (940603.0830) --
No offense to anyone on CSG-L but I see a whole lot of talk but very little
results. So . . . I can generate very little interest.
I think this is a very good point. It jogs many thoughts. The main one being
"what can one do"? What results would generate interest? It's hard to tell.
I've been working on PCT for 12+ years, I have a book full of results and
files full of unpublished or uncompleted studies. Tom B. and Bill P. have
also produced an enormous body of results -- an amazing amount considering
the fact that they had to do all this work on the side, had no graduate
students to help, etc.
I really did mean "no offense." Especially to Bill P., Tom B. Martin T., and yo
u
Rick. I am well aware your output. I guess that I was trying to jog other
lurkers into activity. We need other sources to cite. For example, I tried
to write an article for "Educational Technology" about PCT. (Actually it was
a response to their Oct. '93 issue concerning Behaviorism.) After a while I
gave up. All I could cite was two authors; (Powers, 1973) and (Marken,1992).
I also gave up because I realized that halfway through all I had really done
was rewrite Bill's "Skinner's Mistake" paper.
The only hope, as I see it, is to increase the number of people who are doing
PCT research -- real, QUALITY PCT research -- especially the number doing it
in high profile positions in research institutes and universities. That is
why discussion in CSG-L (even though it is all talk) is so attractive to me.
Yes, I was not asking for less talk, just more research, more projects, more
citations. Lets face it, this social science game is played by either staking
out a position and becoming an authority, or by citing authority until the
point is made. For example, when ever I give my research psychologists a PCT
article or book to read the first thing they do is look at the reference section
.
They can tell a lot about the article just by noting who is and is not cited, an
d
the titles of the articles cited. I'm not saying this mode of inquiry is good o
r
bad. Its just the way they have been trained. They want to know 'Has the
author done his/her homework? Is the author citing both those who agree
and disagree with the position the article takes?'
My hope is the
one or two people listening in (like you?) will start to do some of the basic
experiments and, then, start doing variants and, then, hopefully, produce
some "interesting" research results.
That's my hope as well. By the way, we have managed to get Tom Hancock
and a graduate student on board for the summer. We will be doing
computer-based education/training from a PCT perspective. (At least I
hope it is a PCT perspective. Given the current dialogue of what is/isnot
PCT relevant I have 'splaining to do.) In particular, we will finish up
some research started last year on "feedback" in computer based-drills.
(You may recall that Tom H. ended up referring to what the educational
technology community calls "feedback" as something like "post response
information.") I hope to clarify how students use "feedback" in computer
based drills.
The graduate student is going to be using Martin's wonderful "Control
Builder" program to help us design and test models of student/computer
interaction.
I supose an alternative is for me to go off, stop babbling on CSG-L and just
start doing more research. But for me, it's a question of allocation of
resources. I only have so much time that I can steal away for PCT work.
No . . . No . . . No . . . Don't go away! The social dynamics of this list h
ave
shown that certain elements need to be present to create 'critical mass.'
I'm not advocating less talk... less CSG-babble. Just more research. We
can babble all we want.
My concern is that less talk will not lead to more research. It could be
that there is a lot more research because of all the babbling that goes
on on CSG-L. I was only indicating the my reference for seeing "results"
was higher than my actual perception of such.
What
is the most effective way to spend that time in order to achieve the goal of
promulgating an interest in and an understanding of PCT ? For twelve years I
spent that time developing studies and demos and publishing them if possible;
the results of this effort, in terms of getting people interested in PCT,
were negligible.
HOLD ON A MINUTE! For you the results might seem negligible. But not for
me! I study PCT as a direct result of your article in Psychological Science --
"Degrees of Freedom in Behavior" I admit I couldn't understand it all. I admit
feeling that the research was all backward. But I was intrigued. I borrowed
a copy of B:CP and began to read. I read for the entire weekend. (The wife was
quite concerned that I would prefer to spend my weekend buried in a book
rather than the yard work.)
Friday evening I remember telling my wife "This was written by a mad
scientist." By Saturday morning I told her this Powers guy was a "blooming
mad scientist." By the evening he was "friggin mad scientist." But by Sunday
night ... well... I wasn't sure what I thought. But I definitely had a feeling
that I needed to follow up.
I signed up to CSG-L and lurked for quite a while. I understood that this
process of understanding PCT would take some time. Two years, according
to the mad scientist. Well its been two years, I'm still learning. Still
reorganizing. And quite honestly, thrilled just be able to grasp the
fundamentals of PCT and its implications for the social sciences. So don't
tell me "the results of this effort, in terms of getting people interested in
PCT, were negligible." (By now Rick you should be licking your lip to see if
its still bleeding, checking for Zuzu's petals, and saying to yourself "Its A
Wonderful Life." Who knows, maybe every time you hear a bell ring -- it
means an angel just caught on to PCT)
Rich
ยทยทยท
--------------------------------------------------
Richard Thurman
Air Force Armstrong Lab
6001 S. Power Rd. BLDG. 558
Mesa AZ. 85206-0904
(602) 988-6561
Thurman@hrlban1.aircrew.asu.edu
---------------------------------------------------