From Bob Clark (931214.1630 EST)
DYNAMIC PSYCHOLOGY
Several Netters have responded to this topic.
AVERY ANDREWS (931209.1107)
Has provided a condensed summary of this topic. This seems to have
come from a recognition of the importance and utility of "dynamics"
in the physical sense, followed by trying to apply it to biological
systems. Properly applied, no problem. Several biological systems
have dynamic aspects. But your further comments indicate that they,
Dynamic Psychologists, are trying to extend these concepts well
beyond their original definitions. Seems like more "application of
technical terms to another field without fully understanding their
original meaning."
MARTIN TAYLOR (931208 18:30)
Has commented on several topics. ["muddy waters," perhaps, but let's
try to run the muck through a suitable filter. Also, you ask why I
omitted "second order" -- I didn't think the entire list was needed
to make the point.]
You point out:
They [dynamic systems] relate to behaviour because control systems
do, and control systems are dynamical systems.
Yes, of course these systems are dynamical systems and those laws are
applicable. But this is the physics use of "dynamical," and seemingly
not the "psychological" use. See Avery Andrews above.
BILL POWERS (931209.0600 MST)
Your comments supplement Avery's and Martin's nicely. And your
statement:
Psychological usages of the word "dynamics" are based only on a
loose association with things that move or change, or that cause
movement ("motivation") or change. There is no rigorous system of
thought behind such usages, so trying to figure out what they mean
is a waste of time.
This has been my conclusion based on discussions on the Net. But
there is much I do not know, so I decided to try to find out if there
is any substance behind those comments.
Your compliment to Avery Andrews (Bill Powers (931208.0825 MST)
confirms that conclusion.
TOM BOURBON [931209.1320]
Thank you for your extensive contribution. Clearly this constitutes
an excellent beginning for anyone desiring more information about
"dynamical systems (psychological version)," "attractors" and the
like. As you note, the report you summarize seems to be more a study
of learning and memory than it is a form of "dynamic systems analysis
(physics version)." Your comment:
I am certain a few people on this net would argue that, given data
such as these, there is no behavioral phenomenon for the authors to
interpret with DSA. But the data clearly meet the criteria accepted
in modern behavioral science and the authors did use DSA to
interpret the data.
So they were published.
You add:
"anyone who says DSA, **as it is typically applied in
behavioral-cognitive science**, subsumes PCT."
Your implied conclusion, with which I agree, is that such a person
really has no idea what PCT is "all about."
Your further contribution, Tom Bourbon (931209.1530), with its
references and quote from Turvey, includes terms and concepts
borrowed from other fields that I find inconsistent with much of my
knowledge of physics and other fields.
For example, you note:
Turvey's uses of "attractor" seem a little slippery to me -- the
problem is probably in me.
That the "problem" is Turvey's, not yours, is directly shown by your
quote:
Turvey speaks (1) of how any reachable point is "like a point
capable of attracting" etc
Long ago I concluded that any item defined exclusively by analogy is
questionable at best.
You have provided extensive and detailed reasons to ignore anything
connected with "dynamic psychology."
I hope my impression is correct: that you also find these attempts
without merit.
Thanks again for your prompt response to my post.
Regards, Bob Clark