# DYNAMIC PSYCH - RKC

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/dynamic-psych-rkc/3301>\
**Category:** CSG1993\
**Created:** [December 14, 1993, 9:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/dynamic-psych-rkc/3301 "1993-12-14T21:46:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Robert\_K\_Clark1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/3bc359/32.png) [@Robert\_K\_Clark1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Robert_K_Clark1)\
**Post date:** [December 14, 1993, 9:46pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/dynamic-psych-rkc/3301/1 "1993-12-14T21:46:00Z")

</div>

> 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