[From Rick Marken (961002.1020)]
Bill Benzon (961001) to Kent McClelland --
I have been called arrogant by many, but you one-upped me there.
I think you seriously misread the tone of Kent's reply, Bill. Kent is many
things -- smart, talented, good-looking -- but he's sure not arrogant.
That's my job;-)
I want to understand the difference between, say, American music now and
American music at the turn of the century...I think a Darwinian approach
might be useful.
I think it is a fascinating question. But I don't see how a Darwinian
approach can work here. As I understand it, in the Darwinian approach the
environment filters out certain phenotypes so that only certain individuals
can survive and reproduce; this biases the genotype pool so that most of the
individuals in subsequent generations have the phenotype that allowed their
ancestors to pass through the survival filter ("Darwin's Hammer"). I suppose
styles of music are like phenotypes; the references for the perception of
particular styles could be considered genotypes. But where is the analog of
Darwin's Hammer? One possibility is the public's reception of the music. But
public opinion doesn't really act like Darwin's Hammer. Few artists who
produce unpopular styles actually die (at least not before they procreate
;-)) And those who do produce successful styles don't seem to pass this on to
the next generation (look what happened to the Bach family after J.S.;-))
I think that an evolutionary process does underly change in musical style,
but I doubt that it is a Darwinian process. It is more purposeful. People
probably develop references for music styles to satisfy other purposes within
themselves: the purpose of making a living, being acclaimed as a genius,
making people happy, etc. When the styles they come up with fail to help them
achieve their purposes, they either change their music style reference or get
out of the business.
Si I think the "selection" of music style is part of an individual's effort
to control her own perceptions; it is not (as in Darwinian evolution) a
passive result of environmental (in this case public opinion) filtering. The
musician controls, say, her perception of "making a living" by varying her
style until that style results in "a living". The style that results in "a
living" is the one that is enjoyed by a sufficient segment of the population
of music listeners. The question, then, is why do people prefer some music
styles over others and why do preferences for different styles change.
Obviously, people don't _just_ control for hearing certain styles of music;
they also seem to control for variety in style. Ultimately, there may be some
built-in limits on what styles people will like, but, obviously those limits
are VERY broad.
Bruce Abbott (961002.0855 EST) --
Me:
The Test is just a method for detecting what people are controlling. It
is not guaranteed to allow the user to know precisely what variable is
being controlled after a few disturbances have been applied.
Ye:
Then why did you claim to know what I am controlling for in our exchanges?
Again, I think I have a pretty good idea about some of the variables you are
controlling. You might not like my verbal description of these variable but
it's rather clear that you are controlling for them.
now you are softening your claim and admitting that you couldn't really be
so sure after all.
No. I am as sure as I can be at this point in the testing. It's a variable
that's tough to describe verbally.
What is a disturbance for me is not your claim to be able to learn what I am
controlling for, but your claim as to what _it is_ that I am controlling
for. I don't like it when people attribute motives to me that are not mine.
There's another variable you are controlling -- not having motives attributed
to you that are not your actual motives. I think this is a variable that
most people (including me) control for. I think people don't like to have
motives attributed to them _at all_ (that's another reason why people don't
like PCT), and they especially don't like it if the attributed motives
are not really their motives. Of course, they also don't like it when the
attributed motives _are_ really there motives -- especially if they are not
stated in the right way. Hitler probably didn't like people attributing to
him the motive of murdering all European Jewry. He probably would have
accepted, however, your diagnosis that his motive was to "improve European
culture".
The problem with using language to describe a high level controlled variable
is that words can be interpreted in so many different ways. I think you
didn't like my description of one of your controlled variables as "seeing no
conflict between PCT and conventional psychology" because you do see some
conflict -- so my description was a disturbance to your perception of the
motives people attribute to you. I agree that it was a poor description of
what you are controlling. Is my currect description of this variable any
better? I would say that you are controlling for "seeing value (to PCT) in
conventional behavioral science methodology".
my suggestion that you are doing miserably is consistent with the fact that
your earlier claim to know what I am controlling for is false. By providing
those answers, I am allowing you to revamp your earlier conclusion; this is
the very opposite of an attempt to hide, and completely at odds with your
new guess that I am attempting to prevent you from identifying my intentions.
Then why wouldn't saying "you are incorrect" have sufficed? Maybe "miserably"
was your way of saying that I was "ice cold" in my guesses about what you are
controlling for. If so, why not just explain what my error was instead of
describing my efforts as "miserable".
By the way, if I am so "miserable" in my efforts to detect the variable you
are controlling for, then I presume that you agree with me that your research
methods textbook (like all other behavioral research methods texts) is of no
value at all to anyone who wants to study purposeful behavior and that you
should immediately begin writing a new research methods books that is all
about Testing for Controlled variables;-)
Best
Le Miserable