[From Rick Marken (970923.0900)]
The October issue of _Discover_ magazine is all about "Behavior".
I bought a copy because I though it might be fun to read through
it to see if there was any trace of an understanding of behavior
as a purposeful process of controlling perceptions relative to
internal references. So far, no luck. But I have learned that the
new, trendy approach to understanding behavior is in terms of
genes (combined with influences from the environment) and evolution.
In the first article I read, the author makes the point that genes
don't determine behaviors; rather they determine _tendencies_ to
behave in certain ways in the presence of environmental events. So
the _new_ view of human nature is that we behave as we do because
our genes determine _tendencies_ to respond in various ways to
environmental stimuli. I'm probably biased, but this doesn't seem
like a huge step beyond S-R psychology to me.
Acts and Results
What is missing from everything I have looked at in the _Discover_
issue so far is any understanding of the fact that when we talk
about "behavior" we are talking about both _actions_ and the
_results_ of those actions; we are talking about both hand
movements (actions) and the signature on the contract (the result).
Also missing is the understanding that most consistently produced
results are produced by different actions every time -- and
necessarily so or the results (due to disturbances to those results)
would not repeat. So the same "behavior" (result) is (and must always
be) produced by different behaviors (actions).
Control
This kind of "behavior" (variables actions producing consistent
results) can only be accomplished by a system that perceiives the
state of the result (the signature), compares this percpetion to a
reference for what that perception _should be_, and continuously
acts (moves the hand) to keep the discrepency between perception
and reference near zero. The behavior of this system -- the
relationship between acts, results and disturbances to those
results -- is called _control_. This control system generates
neither actions or results; rather, it generates a _perception_
(of the intended result) that meets the specifications provided
by the reference for the perception.
With this understanding of the natujre of behavior, the authors of
the _Discover_ articles on "Behavior" would realize that, if
anything about behavior is inherited it is reference specifications
for the states of perceptions -- not specific ways of
generating actions. They would also undertsand that the apparent
influence of the environment on responses is not an effect of the
environment at all; it is the control system acting to protect
controlled perceptions from environmental disturbance.
Extremism
Reading the _Discover_ issue made me realize why a PCT revolution
is such a remote possibility in the near future. The problems with
the discussions of behavior in that issue are fundamental. I see
two ways for control theorists to deal with these problems: 1) try
to critique the papers carefully and try to explain the flaws in
detail or 2) explain the fundamental problem (that they are based
on an incorrect understanding of thenature of behavior itself) and
reject them out of hand, calling for a new start for behavioral
science.
The first approach seems like the most reasonable; but it has not
been very effective because when you get into the details you tend
to lose the big picture. This is what is happening in the discussion
with Bruce Abbott; when we get into the details of the problems
with the EAB view of behavior we (and the people listening) tend to
miss the big picture -- which is that events in the environment
don't cause or control behavior (actions or results); rather,
behavior (actions) control environmantal results (as perceived).
The second approach focuses on the big picture but it can't help
but come off as extremist. When the big picture is "everything
you are reading about behavior in the psych journals, textbooks
and reputable national science magazines (like _Discover_) is
based on a fundamental misconception about the nature of behavior
and is, thus, wrong or misleading" you can't help sounding like an
extremsist. Nobody wants to imagine that behavioral science has been
built, for the last century, on a basic misconception about behavior.
No one wants to think that nearly all the research done to date is
virtually useless. People want to take a moderate position on issues;
they want to believe that the old psychology can't just be all wrong.
The problem for PCT is that science is not politics; the old
psychology simply is _demonstrably_, fundamentally wrong.
I see no solution to this problem. I don't see how either approach
to presenting the PCT view of behavior can "work". I think all we
can do is hope that people of courage and integrity will discover
PCT, be convinced of its merits based on the _evidence_, and start
studying and dealing with other people as what they are; living
control systems.
Bruce Abbott (970923.0800 EST) --
What is your argument, Richard? Is it that one shouldn't accept
my position because I am "defending conventional psychology"?
Not at all. We have no more argument about reinforcement. You're
trying to make points that are irrelevant to the PCT model. We have
already modelled operant behavior and there is nothing in those
models that could be called a "reinforcer". All your talk is
aimed at defending (as I said) a perception of the value of
conventional psychology. This has nothing to do with whether your
arguments are correct or not (they're not but you're certainly
never going to come to your senses so who cares).
My point was simply that your behavior (like mine) is a good
example (that all those reading CSGNet can see) of control of
a higher level perception. I'm (hopefully very transparently)
controlling for some higher level perceptions too; I am controlling
for a view of behavior as a process of control; for the value of
the PCT model of behavior; for the fundamental difference between
PCT and conventional models of behavior. Becuase I am controlling
for these things we come into frequent conflict because what
I say to bring these variables to their reference states is a
disturbance to the variables you are controlling.
I have nothing against you controlling for things like the
value of conventional psychology. Some of my best friends are
conventional psychologists. I'm just disappointed because I
thought you would be a very helpful addition to the PCT
research team.
Best
Rick
ยทยทยท
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken