# Finis

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/finis/4412>\
**Category:** CSG1995\
**Created:** [May 30, 1995, 8:17pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/finis/4412 "1995-05-30T20:17:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Abbott](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/ba8739/32.png) [@Bruce\_Abbott](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Abbott)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 1995, 8:17pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/finis/4412/1 "1995-05-30T20:17:44Z")

</div>

[Bruce Abbott (950530.1445 EST)]

> Bill Leach 950529.21:34 U.S. Eastern Time Zone

> OK, I suppose that we have all had about enough of this one and I'm not  
> sure that all the feathers will be smoothed back down at this point  
> regardless of what happens.

> Joel Judd 950530.0830 CST

> Bruce A. & Rick M. (various):

> After looking over five days' postings at once, my hypothesis is that  
> you two are not controlling for understanding at all; rather, this  
> thread is an opportunity to post bad fly pun titles. In fact, I have  
> noticed this trend on the net several times, and question its scientific  
> usefulness.

> Bill Powers (950530.0945 MDT)

> I can only conclude that there is some other goal  
> involved, like showing who knows most about PCT. What a bore.

One of the well-known little facts of social psychology is that people can  
be drawn into doing things bit-by-bit that they would never do if they knew  
at the beginning how far it was going to go. For example, you're driving an  
old car and the alternator quits. After considering the pros and cons of  
fixing the alternator versus trading in the car for a new one, you go with  
the repair. One hundred and fifty dollars later the alternator is working,  
and then the fuel pump goes out. You've just invested 150 bucks, now it's  
going to cost $75 more to get back on the road -- and $75 is still cheaper  
than a new car. So you fork out. Two weeks later the CV joints fail  
($350). But you've already committed $225 to keep the car; what's $350  
more? You see where I'm going: six months later you've spent over $2000 to  
keep the old clunker on the road. If you'd been faced with $2000 for  
repairs versus trade-in at the beginning, you'd have chosen differently.

That's what has happened with the fly discussion. I kept thinking that one  
more clarification, one more post, would do it. All that has happened is  
that things have become more and more confused.

I'm sorry I carried on so long and bored everyone to death with it and I  
apologize. Before I drop it, though, I want to respond one last time in the  
hopes of clearing up some misunderstandings.

> Bill Leach 950529.02:40 U.S. Eastern Time Zone

> I was almost floored by this posting. Rick specifically asked for a  
> posting to provide an example of Nachtigall's work that could be PCT  
> related.

> Bruce then posted the interesting but irrelevent (to PCT) example of how  
> a fly lands on a ceiling.

> Rick (presumably wondering at this "PCT" example) blasts it rather  
> handily and points out that this example provide little encouragement to  
> read the work.

> If I were Rick, I would be more than just a little stunned at your  
> posting on the matter.

> Bill Leach 950529.21:34 U.S. Eastern Time Zone

> I even admit that while I had the same impression as Rick, I too was  
> wrong about Bruce's intentions with regard to the description. I do not  
> believe however, that either Rick or I were too far amiss since even with  
> the disclaimer, the description made no sense from the standpoint of both  
> Bruce's assertions and Rick's requests.

After rereading Rick's request and my reply to it, I can understand the  
confusion, because it does sound like it was offered as the example Rick  
requested (however, only if you ignore the second paragraph). Here was the  
request:

Rick:

> > You claimed that Nachtigall "clearly recognizes that the structures mediating  
> > insect flight are organized as perceptual control systems" but then presented  
> > evidence (the description of how a fly lands on the ceiling) that he really  
> > doesn't. So if there is some "real, systematic, PCT data collection" in the  
> > insect research field, please point it out. But the "fly landing" stuff is  
> > clearly not it.

I perceived this as a reassertion on Rick's part of his claim that my  
description fly landing was intended as an example of Nachtigall's  
understanding of control systems as applied to insect flight. As I had  
already informed Rick in my prior post that this was not the case, I found  
it especially irritating that he was using this example, again, to make his  
case that Nachtigall's research was not relevant to PCT. By posting the  
direct quote I hoped to show that Nachtigall's description was only  
description, NOT interpretation (control system or otherwise) and thus in  
fact provided no evidence one way or the other, and said so explicitly in  
the paragraph that followed. I was absolutely \_astonished\_ when the post  
was again interpreted as an attempt by me to provide a PCT-relevant  
Nachtigall quote.

RE: hummingbirds

Me:

> > By the way, did you read Bill Powers' nifty little description of  
> > hummingbird behavior? On second thought, you wouldn't find it of  
> > interest--no application of the TEST and all that, just description from  
> > the point of view of the external observer, with a little speculation  
> > about possible controlled variables thrown in.

> Rick Marken (950529.2045)

> I did read it but I did see an application of the Test -- and suggestions on  
> how to do more detailed applications of the Test using high speed  
> photography.

> Bill Powers (950530.0945 MDT)

> I think that my informal presentation may have disguised the Test  
> too well.

I knew I was in trouble for this one as soon as I had posted it; the point I  
was trying to make did not come across. As I'm sure you all remember, this  
whole affair got started because Rick decided that my description of how  
flies land on the ceiling looked too much like cause-effect for his taste. I  
had intended to provide a description much like Bill's of the hummingbird's  
behavior, but then decided it would take more time that it seemed to merit  
and settled for offering the pure behavioral description plus some mention  
of a few of the relevant sensory inputs. To be sure my intensions were not  
mistaken, I added a vague reference to the fact that the whole sequence was  
orchestrated by a set of perceptual control systems. This was not accepted.

After much fruitless debate, we end up with Bill's really excellent  
description of hummingbirds at the feeder, intended to get across to me the  
difference between a description consistent with a PCT approach and one that  
is not. The subtle point of my comment to Rick on this description is that  
it is not really so different from mine: mostly pure description of external  
behavior, with some suggestions being offered about the variables being  
controlled. If I had taken the time to develop my description of the  
variables being controlled by the fly as it lands (including how these  
variables are protected from disturbance), it wouldn't have sounded so  
different from Bill's.

I would have done it, too, if I had known what my decision to save on the  
effort was going to cost in the long run.

Regards,

Bruce