Economics & PCT

CSGnet Archive CSG2010
21

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.08.03.0909 EDT)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.08.03.0556 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.08.03.0646 EDT) --

BG: I think this should be featured on the CSGnet website. I[t] would provide a fair warning to visitors as to what they were letting themselves in for. I wish I had seen it a decade ago. It might have saved me and you a great deal of aggravation, not to mention wasted time.

BP: How do you manage so consistently to make comments like these so they completely conceal what your actual opinion is? Do you mean that visitors might find something that would make everything on CSGnet clearer and more useful, or that that they would be warned away from some awful nonsense before wasting time on it? Does what I wrote lead you to find PCT more acceptable, or less?

BG: Readers should be aware of the way you see the worlds of psychology, sociology, behavioral economics, and neuroscience. What they make of this insight is entirely up to them. Is that clear enough?

Bruce

22

[From Bill Powers (2010.08.03.0742 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.08.03.0909 EDT)–

BG: Readers should be aware of
the way you see the worlds of psychology, sociology, behavioral
economics, and neuroscience. What they make of this insight is entirely
up to them. Is that clear enough?

BP: No. You haven’t said what you make of this insight, or whether
you think readers will be encouraged or turned away by it. Why not just
come right out and tell us what you’re getting at? So far all we have is
indirection and innuendo, as if you don’t want us to know what your real
opinion is, or don’t want to commit to one until you see how the wind
blows.

Just think if me as a thick-headed dolt who doesn’t get the point until
it’s driven home with words of not more than three syllables.

Best,

Bill P.

23

[From Bill Powers (2010.08.03.0802 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2010.08.03.9.40NZT –

I still don’t see
why there cannot be a reference signal (a number) related a very
particular pattern called fear of restriction (freedom). But you say
there can’t so I will have to accept that.

That’s not a good enough reason to accept it. The term “related
to” is vague enough to cover anything including covarying by chance
(zero amount of relatedness). I am saying that restriction is a
perception, with the perceptual signal indicating how much of it exists.
It’s not a reference signal; the reference signal simply indicates how
much of it you want. The actual definition of restriction resides in the
structure of the perceptual input function, and the amount of perceived
restriction is computed from the lower-level inputs to that function.
Fear of restriction consists of the goal of wanting zero restriction
while experiencing some restriction, so there is an error signal and an
attempt to get away from restriction (the goal part of fear), together
with the sensations of physiological preparedness for action (the feeling
part of fear).

If you want to understand PCT you can’t just skim the surface. I know, I
shouldn’t say mean things like that. But I’m feeling mean this morning
and someone has to suffer.

Best,

Bill P.

24

[From Bill Powers (2010.08.03.0831 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2010.08.02.2100) --

I've taken various stabs at linking PCT to the economic system. The
basic idea is that economics is control writ large; it's the
collective (and cooperative) control of input (goods and services) by
groups of individuals.

BP: It might be well to note that the PCT approach to economics is not like any conventional approach. In PCT, prices, for example, don't go up or down because of conditions in the economic system such as supply and demand. They go up and down because somebody raises or lowers them, for a reason. The reasons have to do with certain perceptions the person has and the reference levels for those perceptions that the person is trying to reach or maintain. And those reference levels are set as they are, for the moment, by individuals trying to control higher-level perceptions.

Of course there are structural constraints that have to be taken into account. For example, if I buy a quantity of goods from you, my inventory of those goods increases by the same amount that yours decreases, while my cash reserve decreases by the same amount that yours increases, which is the number of goods times the price per good.

What we end up with is a system made of physical and logical constraints and people controlling their own perceptions by means that are commonly available. That is the economic system. Everything that can be said about the economic system can be expressed in terms of human control systems and the environmental constraints the individual systems have to live with. TGhe whole economic model can be constructed without any of the abstract concepts on which conventional economic theory is built.

Best,

Bill P,

25

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.08.03.1254 EDT)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.08.03.0742 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.08.03.0909 EDT)–

BG: Readers should be aware of
the way you see the worlds of psychology, sociology, behavioral
economics, and neuroscience. What they make of this insight is entirely
up to them. Is that clear enough?

BP: No. You haven’t said what you make of this insight, or whether
you think readers will be encouraged or turned away by it. Why not just
come right out and tell us what you’re getting at? So far all we have is
indirection and innuendo, as if you don’t want us to know what your real
opinion is, or don’t want to commit to one until you see how the wind
blows.

Just think if me as a thick-headed dolt who doesn’t get the point until
it’s driven home with words of not more than three syllables.

BG: Let’s put it this way. If you encountered someone who claimed that the rest of the world was clueless, but that she was among the very few who really understood how the world works, what might you think? She might of course be absolutely correct. On the other hand she might be suffering from excessive enthusiasm. To be perfectly clear, your enthusiasm seems to me a bit excessive.

PCT has demonstrated its value in a still very limited domain. Frankly, I don’t recognize the world of cognitive neuroscience and behavioral economics to be as worthless as you seem to. The fact that the overwhelming majority of behavioral scientists have failed to see PCT as an important tool may be a reflection of their ignorance. On the other hand, it may be a reflection of the fact that PCT is not an useful tool for pursuing the questions that occupy the majority of behavioral science.

Let me suggest that you adopt Napoleon’s advice and think of me as incompetent rather than malicious.

Bruce

26

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.08.03.1443 EDT)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.08.03.0831 MDT)]

What we end up with is a system made of physical and logical constraints and people controlling their own perceptions by means that are commonly available. That is the economic system. Everything that can be said about the economic system can be expressed in terms of human control systems and the environmental constraints the individual systems have to live with. TGhe whole economic model can be constructed without any of the abstract concepts on which conventional economic theory is built.

BG: What a relief! I assume the construction of the model is left as an exercise for the student. The advanced student might want to construct a model based on quantum field theory. This will enable us avoid the abstract concepts that conventional PCT is built on (signals, reference levels, etc.).

Bruce

27

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.03.2240)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.08.03.1254 EDT)

BG: Let's put it this way. If you encountered someone who claimed that the
rest of the world was clueless, but that she was among the very few who
really understood how the world works, what might you think?

It might feel like PCT is claiming this but it's not. PCT is not
saying that behavioral scientists -- the ones who do conventional
statistical S-R research, like Ariely's -- are clueless at all. PCT
shows that the devotion of these scientists to S-R research is
perfectly understandable. The process of control involves disturbance
resistance. In conventional experiments, if the organism under study
is purposeful (closed-loop), then the stimulus (S) is a disturbance to
a controlled variable (typically one the experimenter has asked the
subject to control) and the response (R) is an output that is
involved in preventing the disturbance from moving the controlled
variable from its reference state.

So PCT expects S-R relationships to be found in conventional
behavioral experiments and, while these relationships are likely to be
statistical (since the subject is usually prevented from controlling
perfectly), they are likely to be eye catching, like the apparent
reflexive response of salivation that occurs when food powder is
placed in a dog's mouth. These S-R relationships, which PCT suggests
are the disturbance-output relationship in a control loop, are likely
to be what the researcher finds most eye-catching; it looks like the S
causes the R and that's what behavioral scientists are looking for;
interesting looking causal relationships. So it's much more fun to
discover that something built oneself causes a higher bid than
something not built oneself (the "IKEA effect") than it is to discover
that the subjects are controlling for making a bid that matches their
feeling of achievement.

PCT doesn't say researchers are "clueless" because they like to do
research aimed at discovering causal connections (like the "IKEA
effect") between S and R. PCT is just asking that these researchers
consider the possibility that these causal connections may not
actually exist as causal connections. The observed relationships
between S and R, statistical though they be, certainly exist. PCT is
just asking that researchers consider the possibility that what
appears to be a causal relationship between S and R is not causal. We
ask them to consider this possibility by demonstrating the fact that
non-causal relationships between S and R will be observed when the
system under study is a closed loop control system. So if the system
under study is closed-loop, the S-R relationships observed in
conventional experiments don't mean what the researchers think they
mean.

For some reason, many (most?) behavioral scientists find this
suggestion (that observed causal relationships are not causal)
threatening and insulting. I was a conventional behavioral scientist
with a particular interest in research methods when I first
encountered Bill's analysis (in the Psych Review article) of the
problems that would result from studying closed-loop systems without
knowing they were closed loop. I found his analysis (and
demonstrations) fascinating, not threatening. But I have learned over
the last 30 years that this is not the usual approach to dealing with
the PCT cautions about the open-loop methods of conventional
behavioral science. In fact, the typical reaction is violent rejection
of any suggestion that there might be anything fundamentally wrong
with the conventional approach to behavioral research. There are
probably many reasons for this: researchers are probably controlling
for things like tenure, status, legacy, the correctness of what they
were taught by their beloved teachers, respect for authority,
conformity to the majority opinion, etc. But whatever it is in any
particular case, it has kept virtually all behavioral scientists from
even considering the possibility that the behavior of the subjects in
their studies is closed loop and that, therefore, apparent causal
relationships between S and R that are observed in these studies might
not be what they appear to be.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

28

(Gavin Ritz 2010.08.04.11.44NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2010.08.03.0802 MDT)]

Gavin Ritz 2010.08.03.9.40NZT –

I still
don’t see why there cannot be a reference signal (a number) related a
very particular pattern called fear of restriction (freedom). But you say there
can’t so I will have to accept that.

That’s not a good enough reason to accept it. The term “related to”
is vague enough to cover anything including covarying by chance (zero amount of
relatedness). I am saying that restriction is a perception, with the perceptual
signal indicating how much of it exists.

I got that.

It’s not a reference
signal; the reference signal simply indicates how much of it you want.

So this is what I’m talking about.
So now you agree.

The actual definition of
restriction resides in the structure of the perceptual input function,

Where in the body is this exactly? (the
perceptual input function that defines this is the higher HPCT levels from my understanding???)

and the amount of
perceived restriction is computed from the lower-level inputs to that function.

Fear of restriction
consists of the goal of wanting zero restriction while experiencing some
restriction,

Yes, but there must be a references signal
relating to this higher level perceptual input, if not then no reference signal
no error. Right.

so there is an error
signal and an attempt to get away from restriction (the goal part of fear),
together with the sensations of physiological preparedness for action (the
feeling part of fear).

If you want to understand PCT you can’t just skim the surface.

This is very un-called for comment. I have
spent hundreds of hours on your theory, you should be honored but you seem to
have no respect or interest to be civil. I attempt to understand this theory from
many angles.

This mantra is one that both you a Rick seem to be caught in a
never ending downward spiral, it serves no purpose that I can see.

I know, I shouldn’t say
mean things like that. But I’m feeling mean this morning and someone has to
suffer.

I don’t accept any of your comments
like this, they actually really mean nothing to me, I regard them as frivolous and
something related to your issues, and really nothing to do with me. However if
you want to have strife I can go there if you so desire. I can’t see the
point of that though.

Regards

Gavin

Best,

Bill P.

29

(Gavin Ritz 2010.08.03.18.05NZT)

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.03.2240)]

Bruce Gregory
(2010.08.03.1254 EDT)

BG: Let’s put it this way. If you encountered
someone who claimed that the

rest of the world was clueless, but that she was
among the very few who

really understood how the world works, what might
you think?

But whatever it is in any

particular case, it has kept virtually all behavioral
scientists from

even considering the possibility that the behavior of
the subjects in

their studies is closed loop and that, therefore,
apparent causal

relationships between S and R that are observed in
these studies might

not be what they appear to be.

Rick

I personally have never
worked in psychology don’t use psychology methods, and don’t have interests
in causal relationships. I’m not tainted by any of these things you go on
about.

I’m a trained
professional geotechnical engineer who worked in an engineering consulting
firm, then owned a metal manufacturing business, worked in a corporate as a
human resources manager, owned a semiconductor business, a property development
company, and a business consulting firm, an Equity and Capital Investment
Company, and now run a wholesaling company. My personal interests for the last
2 decades have been complexity theory and feedback systems.

I have presented two complexity
theory feedback models in a number of major international conferences in complexity
and systems science. I have a profiling system that I sell internationally plus
strategic synthesis model that I use for organisational strategy.

I am interested in highly
abstracted bi-conditional variables and their relationships, my key interests are
in spiral relationships where circular causal relationships are just one
special case of a spiral relationship. PCT to me is one model of such type of relationship
that is why I’m interested in PCT. I have looked at many types of closed
loop models.

Does that sound like who
cares about S & R?

Regards Gavin

···
30

Hi Bruce !

B.G. : Let's put it this way. If you encountered someone who claimed that
the rest of the world was clueless, but that she was among the very few who
really understood how the world works, what might you think? She might of
course be absolutely correct. On the other hand she might be suffering from
excessive enthusiasm. To be perfectly clear, your enthusiasm seems to me a
bit excessive.
PCT has demonstrated its value in a still very limited domain. Frankly, I
don't recognize the world of cognitive neuroscience and behavioral economics
to be as worthless as you seem to. The fact that the overwhelming majority
of behavioral scientists have failed to see PCT as an important tool may be
a reflection of their ignorance.

B.H. : Well Bruce I see you are still here :)). Where did you "vanished"
from our discussion ? We were very close to answer on question how useful
can be PCT tools in explaining human nature and relations between people
(teacher and students). It seems to me, as you were afraid of recognizing
some true advantages of PCT and you "run away". Or you were afraid your
theories of school functioning will breakdown. I thought you'll read some
literature i proposed. You are naughty boy. You didn't do your homework and
now you are troubling teachers with similar questions and conclusions all
the time :)))).
If you had read those books, as you promised you will follow up, you would
see that it'is quite opposite. It's not that majority of behavioral
scientists have failed to see PCT as an important tool. They accepted it and
used, but they didn't mentioned the source of their "new ideas" or they
rephrase the PCT theory to their own needs. Somewhere they did mentioned
Bill, somewhere they didn't.

I'm sorry I don't want to control you, but it seems clear to me, that you
have to read something to know what you are talking about. I'm interested if
you read the book B:CP ?

So I think PCT is not such a "bad tool" as you trying to describe it. It's
the "best tool" today, but it needs some improvement.

O.K. Show me or demonstrate some better theory of human behavior then PCT is
and I'll accept it immediately. I'm pretty sure that majority here on CSGnet
will accept it too, maybe even Bill :)))

Best,

Boris

31

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.08.04.0634)]

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.03.2240)]

It might feel like PCT is claiming this but it’s not. PCT is not
saying that behavioral scientists – the ones who do conventional
statistical S-R research, like Ariely’s – are clueless at all.

BG: I’m sorry. I must have misunderstood Bill when he said:

[From Bill Powers *2010.08.02.0312 MDT)]

All existing concepts of how behavior works (other than PCT) are concerned with the informational contents of the brain as human beings experience them. The experiences themselves, of both subject and experimenter, are taken as simple reports about reality, with almost no attempt to explore the kinds of organization needed to give rise to such experiences. The common language of theory in the behavioral sciences relies on undefined terms which everybody is supposed to understand; occasionally there are complicated mathematical statements to give appearance of rigor, but what the mathematics is about is simply more undefined concepts.

BG: If Bill’s intention was to characterize behavioral scientists as knowledgeable and insightful, my bad.

Bruce

32

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.08.04.0647)]

Hi Bruce !

If you had read those books, as you promised you will follow up, you would
see that it’is quite opposite. It’s not that majority of behavioral
scientists have failed to see PCT as an important tool. They accepted it and
used, but they didn’t mentioned the source of their “new ideas” or they
rephrase the PCT theory to their own needs. Somewhere they did mentioned
Bill, somewhere they didn’t.

Boris, meet Rick:

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.03.2240)]

But I have learned over
the last 30 years that this is not the usual approach to dealing with
the PCT cautions about the open-loop methods of conventional
behavioral science. In fact, the typical reaction is violent rejection
of any suggestion that there might be anything fundamentally wrong
with the conventional approach to behavioral research. There are
probably many reasons for this: researchers are probably controlling
for things like tenure, status, legacy, the correctness of what they
were taught by their beloved teachers, respect for authority,
conformity to the majority opinion, etc. But whatever it is in any
particular case, it has kept virtually all behavioral scientists from
even considering the possibility that the behavior of the subjects in
their studies is closed loop and that, therefore, apparent causal
relationships between S and R that are observed in these studies might
not be what they appear to be.

Play nice, you two.

Bruce

···

On Aug 4, 2010, at 4:15 AM, Boris Hartman wrote:

33

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.04.0815)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.08.04.0634)--

Rick Marken (2010.08.03.2240)--

RM: It might feel like PCT is claiming this [that conventional behavioral
scientists are clueless] but it's not. PCT is not saying that behavioral
scientists -- the ones who do conventional statistical S-R research, like
Ariely's -- are clueless at all.

BG: I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood Bill when he said:

Bill Powers *2010.08.02.0312 MDT)]

BP: All existing concepts of how behavior works (other than PCT) are
concerned with the informational contents of the brain as human beings
experience them...

You misunderstand so consistently that it's quite obviously
purposeful. You clearly have no interest at all in understanding
control theory. Join the crowd.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

34

[From Dick Robertson, 2010.08.04.1018CDT]

Nicely put Rick.

Best,

Dick R.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Marken rsmarken@GMAIL.COM
Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 12:41 am
Subject: Re: Economics & PCT
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.03.2240)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.08.03.1254 EDT)

BG: Let’s put it this way. If you encountered someone who
claimed that the
rest of the world was clueless, but that she was among the
very few who
really understood how the world works, what might you think?

It might feel like PCT is claiming this but it’s not. PCT is not
saying that behavioral scientists – the ones who do conventional
statistical S-R research, like Ariely’s – are clueless at
all. PCT
shows that the devotion of these scientists to S-R research is
perfectly understandable. The process of control involves disturbance
resistance. In conventional experiments, if the organism under study
is purposeful (closed-loop), then the stimulus (S) is a
disturbance to
a controlled variable (typically one the experimenter has asked the
subject to control) and the response (R) is an output that is
involved in preventing the disturbance from moving the controlled
variable from its reference state.

So PCT expects S-R relationships to be found in conventional
behavioral experiments and, while these relationships are likely
to be
statistical (since the subject is usually prevented from controlling
perfectly), they are likely to be eye catching, like the apparent
reflexive response of salivation that occurs when food powder is
placed in a dog’s mouth. These S-R relationships, which PCT suggests
are the disturbance-output relationship in a control loop, are likely
to be what the researcher finds most eye-catching; it looks like
the S
causes the R and that’s what behavioral scientists are looking for;
interesting looking causal relationships. So it’s much more fun to
discover that something built oneself causes a higher bid than
something not built oneself (the “IKEA effect”) than it is to discover
that the subjects are controlling for making a bid that matches their
feeling of achievement.

PCT doesn’t say researchers are “clueless” because they like to do
research aimed at discovering causal connections (like the “IKEA
effect”) between S and R. PCT is just asking that these researchers
consider the possibility that these causal connections may not
actually exist as causal connections. The observed relationships
between S and R, statistical though they be, certainly exist.
PCT is
just asking that researchers consider the possibility that what
appears to be a causal relationship between S and R is not
causal. We
ask them to consider this possibility by demonstrating the fact that
non-causal relationships between S and R will be observed when the
system under study is a closed loop control system. So if the system
under study is closed-loop, the S-R relationships observed in
conventional experiments don’t mean what the researchers think they
mean.

For some reason, many (most?) behavioral scientists find this
suggestion (that observed causal relationships are not causal)
threatening and insulting. I was a conventional behavioral
scientistwith a particular interest in research methods when I first
encountered Bill’s analysis (in the Psych Review article) of the
problems that would result from studying closed-loop
systems without
knowing they were closed loop. I found his analysis (and
demonstrations) fascinating, not threatening. But I have learned over
the last 30 years that this is not the usual approach to dealing with
the PCT cautions about the open-loop methods of conventional
behavioral science. In fact, the typical reaction is violent rejection
of any suggestion that there might be anything fundamentally wrong
with the conventional approach to behavioral research. There are
probably many reasons for this: researchers are probably controlling
for things like tenure, status, legacy, the correctness of what they
were taught by their beloved teachers, respect for authority,
conformity to the majority opinion, etc. But whatever it is in any
particular case, it has kept virtually all behavioral scientists from
even considering the possibility that the behavior of the
subjects in
their studies is closed loop and that, therefore, apparent causal
relationships between S and R that are observed in these studies might
not be what they appear to be.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

35

[From Bill Powers (2010.08.04.0921 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2010.08.04.0815)

> BG: I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood Bill when he said:
>
>> Bill Powers *2010.08.02.0312 MDT
>
>> BP: All existing concepts of how behavior works (other than PCT) are
>> concerned with the informational contents of the brain as human beings
>> experience them...

RM: You misunderstand so consistently that it's quite obviously
purposeful. You clearly have no interest at all in understanding
control theory. Join the crowd.

I think it's time to put an end to this bickering, sniping, and totally unpleasant and unproductive sort of conversation. You've been doing better than I have, Rick, at trying to stick to substance and avoid reacting to the --the -- I can't even think of a word for it.

Yesterday I almost unsubscribed from CSGnet. I'm still thinking about it, but a less drastic approach is just to read, ignore, use the delete key, and get on with business. I've always been against censorship and still am, but that doesn't mean I have to respond to the whatever (I'll think of the word pretty soon). Neither does anyone else with a delete key. It bothers me to think of doing this, but I don't see any alternative, other than unsubscribing, as a way to shake off the dilettantes and get down to the serious work of designing, building, and testing models.

Tim Carey has suggested a theme for a special meeting next year: a workshop to develop a research and teaching agenda for PCT. A meeting is already planned for Manchester, England in 2011; this workshop could be tacked onto that, or held here in Colorado a month or so later to fit into the academic year. Anybody is welcome to participate in discussing the agendas or attending the workshop, as long as they have something to contribute or a desire to learm something. That's a one-time offer of amnesty and amnesia, by the way. But no more crap. There, that's the word.

I'm starting a CSGWorkshop mailbox on my computer where I'll save all posts having to do with this subject. I'm not going to save much else.

Best,

Bill P.

36

[From Bruce Gregory(2010.08.04.12204]

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.04.0815)]

You misunderstand so consistently that it's quite obviously
purposeful. You clearly have no interest at all in understanding
control theory. Join the crowd.

BG: Rick, you take being clueless to entirely new level. Congratulations!

Bruce

37

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.08.04.1235 EDT)]

[From Bill Powers (2010.08.04.0921 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2010.08.04.0815)

> BG: I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood Bill when he said:
>
>> Bill Powers *2010.08.02.0312 MDT
>
>> BP: All existing concepts of how behavior works (other than PCT) are
>> concerned with the informational contents of the brain as human beings
>> experience them...

RM: You misunderstand so consistently that it's quite obviously
purposeful. You clearly have no interest at all in understanding
control theory. Join the crowd.

I think it's time to put an end to this bickering, sniping, and totally unpleasant and unproductive sort of conversation. You've been doing better than I have, Rick, at trying to stick to substance and avoid reacting to the --the -- I can't even think of a word for it.

BG: Bullshit?

Don't leave CSGnet, I am out of here. Keep up the good work!

Bruce

38

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.04.1115)]

Bill Powers (2010.08.04.0921 MDT)]\--

Tim Carey has suggested a theme for a special meeting next year: a
workshop to develop a research and teaching agenda for PCT.

Super idea. That Tim Carey. Whadda guy! Wish he were on CSGNet.

I'm starting a CSGWorkshop mailbox on my computer where I'll save all
posts having to do with this subject. I'm not going to save much else.

My current research interest is in developing experimental tests of
open vs closed loop models of conventional psychological experiments.
I thought the discussion with Martin would lead to the development of
such tests but we seem to have hit a hiatus.

What I think would help (me, anyway) would be if you could find those
diagrams of Martin's "control of imagination " and your (and my)
"control of perception" model of behavior in a "psychophysical"
experiment and post them to CSGNet again. I think these were the
models that we all agreed were our proposed alternative explanations
of what was going on in an N-AFC experiment.

Once these diagrams are posted maybe our (Martin's and my) suggestions
about experiments to test the models would be a little easier to
evaluate. If we can get the discussion on course maybe we can come up
with some proposals that will merit inclusion in you CSGWorkshop
mailbox.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

39

[From Rick Marken (2010.08.04.1120)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.08.04.1235 EDT)--

Don't leave CSGnet, I am out of here. Keep up the good work!

You'll be baaaack, unfortunately.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

40

[From Bill Powers (2010.08.04.1855 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.08.03.1254 EDT) --

Let me suggest that you adopt Napoleon's advice and think of me as incompetent rather than malicious.

Considering how many times you've said you don't understand PCT, that may be good advice -- for both of us. But if you're so incompetent about PCT, why don't you just become competent instead of drawing all those wild and malicious-sounding conclusions about it while being satisfied with your ignorance? Lots of people have said that PCT is exactly what you're doubting that it is: a revolution at a very deep level that is going to change all the behavioral sciences. Wouldn't you prefer to be among the first than the last to realize this? Is defense of the status quo of such importance to you?

Bill P.

···

Bruce