Form letter, reality testing

CSGnet Archive CSG1993
1

[From Rick Marken (930427.2100)]

Dag Forssell (930427 17.35) --

I think the form letter is REALLY good. By far your best
effort to date. It's very snappy and it does what I always
hoped you would do -- cut DIRECTLY to the chase. I think
this letter will get a LOT of inquiries. Really well done.

Ken Hacker [930427] --

For social and large systems
behaviors, the theory [PCT] falls short.

Yes, thank you Ken, we know. PCT does not explain social behavior,
Powers' crowd demo and Tom Bourbon's two person modelling notwith-
standing. You've said it three times so that makes it true. Now,
could you please show us how all those great theories of yours
account for "social and large systems behaviors"? You promised that
you would describe a social phenomenon that could not be explained
by PCT -- could you please describe it and give us your explanation?
At the moment, all I know is that PCT can't account for social phen-
omena. If I knew the name of your theory, would you count it as
evidence against it if I said "your theory cannot account for social
phenomena"? Or is what you say about PCT just generally more correct
than anything that I would say about your theory?

look at the
recent attempts to use PCT to explain the situation in Bosnia. My God, I
can find more insight watching Crossfire on CNN and I know that must sound
insulting, but it's true. Here is why Rick Marken, for example, will never
receive a phone call from President Clinton to serve in foreign policy
planning. Marken's analysis of the crisis is something like this: Living
systems are working agains other living systems. Each systems has
reference signals. Some are good and some are bad. Maybe the good should
bomb the bad. What is happening here in terms of application?

Ken, I never gave a PCT analysis of the Bosnia crisis; I asked what
people might do about it (as they understand it from newspaper descrip-
tions) based on a PCT understanding of the nature of the individuals
involved. I asked for fun -- not as a test of PCT. We like to test
PCT in situations where we can measure and manipulate the variables
involved with a bit more precision. So I don't feel insulted by your
comments about Crossfire and CNN but I think it's clear from the tone
of your post who it is who does feel insulted. Relax Ken; nature is the
way it is; if PCT is wrong, we'll find out soon enough; sooner, if you
would just describe that "hard for PCT to explain" social behavior data
you have tucked away there.

Best

Rick

2

[From Oded Maler 930428]

* Rick Marken (930427.2100)]
* Ken Hacker [930427] --

I think the attempts to analyse the Bosnia crisis in terms of
PCT were indeed very poor and naive. There is no *scientific*
theory that can predict large-scale historical processes, but
as demonstrated in some of the postings, someone who has never
heard of PCT, but whose perception of history is based on the
pre-CNN era, will give more reasonable explanations than the
most enlightened PCTer who was brought up in certain a-historical
countries. There are many newsgroups were one can read the opinions
of people on what they mistakenly think they understand (i.e.,
things that appear in the news) but I don't this additional noise
will do any good to the list.

Crowd-like demonstration can reveal some fundamental phenomena
by modeling simplified persons with few perceptual variables,
goals and action. This is very nice and interesting, but I think
it is naive to think that such a model can scale-up and model
the essential propeties of real people with all the cultural,
and geographical context.

--Oded

ยทยทยท

--

Oded Maler, LGI-IMAG, Bat D, B.P. 53x, 38041 Grenoble, France
Phone: 76635846 Fax: 76446675 e-mail: maler@imag.fr

3

From Tom Bourbon (930428.1633)

[From Oded Maler 930428]

* Rick Marken (930427.2100)]
* Ken Hacker [930427] --

I think the attempts to analyse the Bosnia crisis in terms of
PCT were indeed very poor and naive. There is no *scientific*
theory that can predict large-scale historical processes, but
as demonstrated in some of the postings, someone who has never
heard of PCT, but whose perception of history is based on the
pre-CNN era, will give more reasonable explanations than the
most enlightened PCTer who was brought up in certain a-historical
countries. There are many newsgroups were one can read the opinions
of people on what they mistakenly think they understand (i.e.,
things that appear in the news) but I don't this additional noise
will do any good to the list.

Oded, I think I agree. There is more to the story than comes before the
cameras and microphones, and it ws going on centuries ago.

Crowd-like demonstration can reveal some fundamental phenomena
by modeling simplified persons with few perceptual variables,
goals and action. This is very nice and interesting, but I think
it is naive to think that such a model can scale-up and model
the essential propeties of real people with all the cultural,
and geographical context.

Well and good, so long as the deal works both ways. I hope no one assumes,
just because they begin by paying attention to and expressing concern
over, "cultural and geographical context," however those maybe defined -- I
hope they do not assume that their ideas about culture and geography
necessarily result in workable, feasible models of behavior. Contextualism
is all the rage these days, and most applications are intellectually
pleasing to someone, but are sterile, as sources of generative models.
Anyone loking for the latest version of a contextualist "model" should look
in the recent issue of American Psychologist (the annual awards
issue for outstanding work in the many branches of American
psychology). The article by Szapocznik and Kurtines, on "Family Psychology
and Cultural Diversity," includes in Figure 1, a "model" of the individual in
the context of family and culture. For the life of me, I can't help seeing
it as an outline of Mickey Mouse, with his face in the circle representing
the individual, and his ears in the two circles on top, representing culture
and family. Now this is a model! But Figure 2 improves on things --there
are three concentric rings, with the individual in the center, the family in
the next ring, and culture on the outside. And if that is not enough, Figure
3 has the individual in the center circle, the family in the next ring, and
"cultural diversity" (which replaces mere culture) located in amoeboid blob
on the outside -- all with the legend: "A model for the embeddedness of
contexts within a culturally pluralistic milieu." Oded, I do not believe
this is what *you* had in mind, but it is what most of the rest of
behavioral and social science is thinking when it levels charges of
limited scale and scope against PCT.

I agree that CROWD-GATHERINGS, and my interactive tasks, are limited, but
they do demonstrate a working model for living systems. For all of their
noble concerns with culture, context and higher cognitive processes, I
cannot say the same for the kinds of "models" I see rewarded every year in
the special issue of American Psychologist. That issue is always good for a
couple of hours of rage.

Until later,
  Tom Bourbon