# demo model **URL:** \ **Category:** CSG1995\ **Created:** [January 4, 1995, 4:27pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/demo-model/13567 "1995-01-04T16:27:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1

**Author:** ![William\_T\_Powers2](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@William\_T\_Powers2](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/William_T_Powers2)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 1995, 4:27pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/demo-model/13567/1 "1995-01-04T16:27:29Z")

[From Bill Powers (950104.0845 MST)] Rick Marken (950103.1530 PST) -- Jeff Vancouver (950103.1530) -- Jeff's huge paper is very impressive, but see my earlier post this morning. Bringing together dozens of different approaches to living systems assumes that all these approaches are compatible: that the result of combining them will yield a net gain. I think that the synthesis achievable in this way is mostly cosmetic: it makes these approaches seem much more coordinated than they really are. As to decision-making, it struck me yesterday that the reason people work out "decision making methods" is in order NOT to have to make any decision. If you do a cost-benefit analysis on method A and method B, you come up with a C/B ratio for each one and pick the method with the lower ratio. Where's the decision? The only time you really have to make a decision is when the numbers come out exactly equal. If choice of a course of action depends on a number of factors, and if there is some rationale, reason, or algorithm involve in weighing the factors, then the course of action that will occur is foreordained in the factors taken into account and the reasoning applied to them. There is neither a choice nor a decision required: just turn the crank and out comes the answer. You don't need any machinery that isn't in HPCT. True decisions or choices, as Mary pointed out some time ago, are \_conflicts\_. They occur only when higher-order systems do not automatically select one action rather than another, but try to achieve incompatible goals. Now there is no systematic way to resolve the conflict: if you say eenie-meenie-minie-mo and end up on either side, the other side objects and nothing happens. The only solution is to reorganize the systems that are causing the conflict, and that involves random variations, not systematic methods. Decision \_making\_ methods are really decision \_avoiding\_ methods. > **···** > > --------------------------- > RE: demo model > > I think virtually all conventional research is motivated by the > observation (or the hope) that some variable in the environment > affects some behavior; the obvious effects of behavior on the > environment typically go unnoticed. > > If the demo were presented to a conventional behavioral scientist, all > that would be visible would be the visual phenomena on the screen and > the movements of the mouse. There might be some vague realization that > the mouse is affecting the display, but that is true of practically any > behavioral situation and I don't think it would have much effect. What I > would predict is that the display variables would be taken as > independent variables and the mouse behavior as the dependent variable. > > Even an a-causal ANOVA would involve calculating correlations between > stimuli and responses, wouldn't it? How likely do you think it is that > any conventional scientist analyzing this situation would realize that > there is an independent but invisible disturbance acting which > correlates almost perfectly with the mouse movements? I think that the > conventional approach would end up attributing the mouse movements to > the changes in the two objects that are NOT under control; they would > contribute by far the most to "explaining the variance" of the mouse > positions. > > Of course this could also be done just by using three cursors and three > stationary targets, but I thought that having different kinds of control > tasks would get around the objection that this is "just tracking." > > We'll see what Bruce Abbott has to say. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Best to all, > > Bill P. ---

**Author:** ![Marken\_Richard\_S](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Marken\_Richard\_S](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marken_Richard_S)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 1995, 7:00pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/demo-model/13567/2 "1995-01-04T19:00:06Z")

[From Rick Marken (950104.1100 PST)] Bill Powers (950104.0845 MST) -- > I think that the conventional approach would end up attributing the mouse > movements to the changes in the two objects that are NOT under control; they > would contribute by far the most to "explaining the variance" of the mouse > positions. I agree. I personally like your proposed demo ALOT and I think it can be used to make some excellent points about the problems of using conventional methodology to study living control systems. But remember, I'm the simple- minded guy who happens to like experiments and demos that are simple, elegant, clear and to the point. I don't think your proposed demo will make any impression at all on the sophisticated people who \_know\_ that conventional methodology \_must\_ be useful in the study of living systems. Heck, conventional methods have been used for years with no problems (unless you consider crappy data a problem;-)). Remember (how could you forget?): people are control systems. If they want to believe something they will believe it. People are very good at devising ingenious and unpredictable ways to maintain their beliefs in the face of even the clearest, cleanest evidence (research and modelling). And when it seems like like the press of evidence is just too great, there is always the ultimate defense: "I'm pretty busy right now so I can't deal with this stuff in much detail; catch you later". Control in action; belief safely maintained. Best Rick