[From Rick Marken (991004.1540)]
Steve Adey (991004.1400 GMT) --
As a serious investigator (at least conceptually, if not yet
actually coding), the sooner we get started on the more difficult
cognitive psychology problems, the sooner people will start
to take notice. Defending against Skinnerism seems to be a
waste of time since psychology has move on, even if it is
currently stuck with S-R terminology. I suggest that a key
issue is to spend more time on the higher levels that relate
to the cognitive school, and less time on the lower levels that
relate more directly to behaviorism.
What is "cognitive", anyway? Bill Powers has published a paper
describing a "cognitive control system" which demonstrates peoples'
ability to control for "cognitive" perceptions like, as I recall,
"x such that x + y = 25". And my trademark "Mind Reading" demo is
about as cognitive as you can get. You'll see this eventually when
I zip up my demos but others who think PCT ignores congnition can
see it at
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/ThreeTrack.html
In this demo the computer reads a person's intentions. I don't
know what is more cognitive than intentions. I think it's amazing
to see the computer tell you which of three squares you are
actually moving intentionally (an observer can't tell which is
being moved intentionally by just looking at the movement of the
three squares). When you "change intentions" and start moving a
new square the computer picks this up even though there is no
change in your overt behavior. PCT actually lets you track a
person's "cognitive states" (intentions) even when those states
are behaviorally _invisible_. I think my Mind Reading demo is
about as cognitive as anything can get. It may not be about what
_real_ cognitivists think of when they think of cognition (whatever
that might be); but it seems awfully cognitive to me.
Marc Abrams (991004.1513) --
Rick in his exuberance and enthusiasim often pooh pooh's the
significance of the cognitive aspects of the model sometimes
overzealously ( again in my opinion) "explaining" that
it's not needed to "explain" behavior. I don't think this has
been especially helpfull in gaining PCT some popularity.
I hope I didn't really say that the cognitive aspects of the
HPCT model (the higher level perceptions) are not needed to
explain behavior. What I can imagine having said (or what I
_should_ have said, if I didn't) is that it's important that
people understand how to study control of perception (using
the test to identify controlled variables) before they go off
and start studying "cognitive" aspects of the model.
Current cognitive psychology is built on the same cause-effect
research framework as the rest of psychology; so when cognitivists
start applying PCT to "cognitive behavior" before learning the
basic principle of control of perception (or, more to the point,
before learning about the phenomenon of controlled variables and
how to observe it) they are almost certain to get it (the PCT model
_and_ the research) wrong.
A good example of this is the work done by Carver and Scheier
on the apparently very cognitive concept of "self esteem".
These researchers assumed that PCT was just another theory that
was designed to explain the conventionally obtained (S-R) data
in their field. They understood the PCT model OK but they
didn't know that PCT is a model of control; nor did they know
anything about controlled variables or how to determine whether
a person was controlling a particular variable or not. The result,
of course, is the disaster that is the field called "self
regulation". Self regulation sounds very cognitive; but self
regulation researchers like Carver and Scheier have learned
nothing at all about the cognitive aspects of the controlling
being done by their subjects -- because they have learned nothing
about the _controlling_ done by their subjects. You can't learn
about controlling (cognitive or otherwise) if you don't know how
to determine what perceptions are being controlled.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/