[Martin Taylor 2017.06.21.07.56]
[From Rick Marken (2016.06.17.1150)]
As you might expect, I see some of that history differently. But I'm
not going to set up a conflict on that score. Instead, I want to
consider the positive points here.
[RM] "But in all cases the different view was seen (usually by just
Bill, Tim Bourbon and myself) as wrong and the tool useless."
[MT] I imagine that is true. This doesn't mean that the view or the
tool at that time understood by the newbie as important and useful
would have actually been wrong and useless once the newbie began to
fully understand PCT (as if that were possible:-). If they had been
encouraged, in the manner you describe for Bill, to see why what
they were espousing was not useful within PCT, while PCT was useful
in the domain of their interest, some, I think, would have stayed
and by now would have been smart enough to have developed PCT in
ways none of us now can guess.
[RM] "You may have heard my arguments against these views and tools
as effectively saying “We don’t serve your kind here”. My guess this
is because you disagreed with my arguments."
[MT] I doubt it. Why? Because an argument is something with which
one cannot disagree. One can disagree with a conclusion, especially
if it masquerades as an argument, and I have often disagreed with
your conclusions. An argument, however, is something one can
explore. One can examine premises for agreement or disagreement (as
I have been doing with Bruce Nevin recently). One can examine
whether an argument follows logically (or even reasonably) from
agreed premises. Not all arguments can be resolved easily, but they
are at least openings for learning, even when the end result remains
disagreement over conclusions.
[MT] What does PCT tell us, at least at the most obvious level? It
is that people act to control perceptions, bringing them nearer
their reference values. And what is likely to be a controlled
perception among people whose actions can be labelled “research”? I
would guess that one such would be a perception of self as
understanding the way the world works (and the perception is that
one does not, in some respect). Why would such a person want to
investigate PCT? Could it be that what that person has learned so
far in life does not seem to be reducing the error in that
controlled perception, at least not fast enough? When the person
controls in imagination (planning), might they not have imagined
combining PCT with what they already know, to increase their
understanding of how the world works?
[MT] Let's do some imagining here, and imagine that such people are
not greeted with “PCT doesn’t need what you know”, but with “What
are you really hoping to achieve by investigating PCT. How can we
help? Maybe you will find a new way to do what you want, without
forgetting your tools. Perhaps when you have learned to appreciate
what PCT might do for you, you will find that you are thinking
differently and will discard your old ideas – or maybe you won’t,
and will be able to see ways that with those tools and PCT together,
you can advance your (and our) knowledge of the way the world
works.”
[MT] PCT isn't an actor in and of itself. The people who practice it
are controllers of their own perceptions. Some have reference values
for perceptions of what a psychological science should be, and for
some of those, the reference values are described in the writings of
Bill Powers. Some want to find out what a psychological science
should be, with reference values that are based on the concordance
between what the science says Nature should do and what they observe
that Nature does. When a newbie investigating PCT is told that they
are wrong simply because what they say disagrees with PCT, the
teller is showing that they belong to the first class of PCT
practitioner.
[MT} If, however, the newbie is asked whether they can see why what
they say is incompatible with PCT, but that maybe PCT might serve
their purposes at least as well as what they already understand,
perhaps they might be readily drawn into learning more about PCT. In
the end, each individual researcher must decide for him- or herself
whether there are deep inconsistencies between what they knew or
thought they knew and PCT, or whether by changing viewpoint they can
see how what they knew and PCT strengthen and reinforce each other
in a greater synthesis.
[MT] I have no doubt that this is your perception. The question
isn’t whether what you say is as others perceive the history, but
whether you were and are controlling for bringing people with new
ideas and different tools to a state where they want to learn more
about PCT. If you are, then I would ask you whether you perceive
your actions to have been successful in bringing that perception
nearer its reference value. FWIW, my perception, using the “random
disturbance” observational version of the TCV, is that you control
for NOT having new people introducing new possibilities and new
views that might augment PCT.
[MT] Quite possibly. Going back to before my first encounter with
Bill P at CSG-93, I have talked about “The Bomb in the Hierarchy”,
which is the inherent possibility that a hierarchy reorganized in a
stable environment may explode erratically (in a child I call the
explosion a “temper tantrum”) when in an environment that works
differently, exposing positive feedback loops that might cascade up
the hierarchy in the same way that a “sandpile avalanche” cascades
down the sandpile slope. I can’t speak for Alex, but I imagine he
has developed his “researcher” part of his hierarchy in an
environment in which logic is taken seriously. When he encountered
an environment in which that is not true (as he perceived it – as
do I), the Bomb did explode.
[MT] Not by doing that, but by ignoring both common sense and
mathematical logic.
[MT] No. I suspect there may be subtle ways in which one can detect
a ticking “Bomb”, but I think it doubtful that CSGnet is a medium in
which they are easily observed, if they exist at all.
[MT] I believe both. But I also believe that "people's
misconceptions" are as you perceive them. I ask you to think about
your own behaviour when someone tries to correct your own
“misconceptions” as they are perceived by the one trying to correct
you. Since you use Alex as an example (I agree that I used his name
first), let’s just ask about one misconception among many in your
Power Law paper – the idea that the curvature at a point on a curve
is a function of time. Alex tried to point out to you within hours
of your first mentioning it on CSGnet that this cannot be true. Your
only “argument” for months, culminating in a publication, was a flat
statement that it is true. Never, ever, have you actually made an
argument to support the idea.
[MT] Alex has not had the breadth of experience in encountering such
conclusions masquerading as arguments as some of us have. So his
hierarchy has no way of dealing with it and was suscptible to the
Bomb (nor, I think does my hierarchy have sufficient resilience to
avoid such outbursts from time to time, even though I perceive them
– from the Analyst’s viewpoint – to be counterproductive.)
[MT] Might it not be better to ask a person whether property "X" of
PCT is compatible with what they think they know, and do a kind of
MoL approach to seeing whether, at a higher level, a conflict you
perceive might have a resolution. Maybe the “correction” is
unnecessary, and the person would discover it by learning PCT
better. Maybe it’s unnecessary because you yourself don’t understand
what is being told by the person (as, I continue to believe, is the
case with information theory).
[MT] What makes you think I don't think that? But also what makes
you think I don’t go up a level to ask why those insulting and
sometimes profane replies occur?
[MT] Is Boris a troll? I suppose it depends on your definition. I
conceive of trolls as posting what they do in order to generate
conflict. They control a perception of power with a reference of
having some and a perception that they don’t. By having the power to
create a conflict, they bring their perceptions closer to their
reference values.
[MT] I don't see Boris that way. I perceive him as being like you,
in having a serenely confident sense of knowing exactly how PCT
works, and wanting everybody to see that THIS is the way PCT works,
by “correcting” every deviation from the way you or he perceive PCT
to work. The problem is that Boris’s perception differs from yours,
and neither of you use argument to analyze which, if either, is
closer to what Nature (as opposed to Bill Powers) says.
[MT] Anyway, to answer your question, I do think that irresolvable
arguments are likely to lead people to perceive that PCT is a poor
relation to science, and therefor not worth pursuing. For many years
I have wished that there was some forum to which I could point
potential PCT learners, so that they could learn by asking questions
and by observing carefully constructed arguments in the way I
initially learned “back in the day”. It’s part of the reason several
of us started ECACS, that we thought we could provide such a forum
when CSGnet had ceased to be a possibility.
Martin
···
Martin Taylor (2017.06.16.22.53)–
MT: I had not intended to discuss this in public,
RM: Then why bring it up? Just to tell people that I am
solely responsible for driving people away from CSGNet? If
you really think I alone am imperiling the future of PCT
by driving people away from CSGNet then I think a positive
step would be for you to tell me, publicly, what you think
I could do to stop driving people away. I certainly don’t
want to be driving people away.
MT: So I'll just ask you to try
going back over the last quarter century or so and think
of the people who seemed smart, who seemed to offer a
different view or a different tool that might have
benefited the further development of PCT, and who have
left after being effectively told by you “We don’t serve
your kind here.” Just think back over the years, and
most recently in your interactions with the semiotician
who is trying to get a deep understanding of PCT to
apply it in his work. Just think.
RM: Am I
ever going to get an answer to this, Martin?
I’d really like to know what I’m doing that
is driving people away from CSGNet.
RM: Ah, so it's me that's driving
away people. Could you tell me what
I could have done differently to not
drive these people away?
RM: OK, I can think of many people who were very smart
who came to CSGNet and eventually abruptly left. Most of
these people did offer a different view of or tool for
studying PCT. But in all cases the different view was seen
(usually by just Bill, Tim Bourbon and myself) as wrong
and the tool useless. This, of course, made some of these
people very upset and they left. But others (like
yourself) didn’t leave. You may have heard my arguments
against these views and tools as effectively saying “We
don’t serve your kind here”. My guess this is because you
disagreed with my arguments. But you also disagreed with
Bill’s (and Tom’s) arguments so I think it may be that
Bill made his arguments in a way that was less
contentious.
RM: Looking back over the history of CSGNet, in memory as
well as in the archive, I can recall having occasionally
made angry outbursts that I regret and I wish I had more
consistently adopted the “cordial conflict” approach to
argumentation of Bill and Mary. But I think that in general
my arguments were always substantive and reflected my
understanding of PCT. I have tried to avoid ad hominum
argumentation and personal insults and I believe I have
largely succeeded.
RM: My impression is that the most angry and insulting
posts have come from those who were (and are) arguing
against me.
A relatively recent example that comes to mind was
Alex’s repeatedly saying that my PCT interpretation of the
power law was “bullshit”. This was after Alex had
specifically asked how PCT would interpret the power law.
When I realized that the PCT interpretation was likely to be
a huge disturbance to Alex I actually asked him in private
if it would be OK for me to put it on CSGNet, telling him
only that he might find it troubling. He said no problem,
we’re doing science here (or something like that) so I put
it on the net and all hell broke loose. So was I driving
people away by doing that?
Should I have known that my proposal would drive Alex to
profanity and insult?
RM: So you think I am driving people away and I think I
am trying to teach PCT and correct people’s misconceptions
about it.
So it looks to me like you see me as driving people away
when I correct them; you probably see it differently. So
again, I ask what would you have me do differently so that I
don’t drive people away?
And why don't you think that some of the blame for
driving people away from CSGNet might be in the often
insulting and sometimes profane replies I get to my posts.
Don't you think posts like those from Boris might have
more to do with driving people away from CSGNet than mine
do? Trolls are not a recent invention, you know. They have
come and gone on CSGNet from the start.