Dag:
I got around this weeking to viewing your video II and so I offer you a few
comments.
Overall, I must say that I am VERY positively impressed by your
presentation. When you did something like this in Durango 93 I didn't see
how all the scientific revolution stuff fit in. This time it got me all
excited again about PCT and our part in the paradigm change.
I don't share your belief, however, that paradigm shifts need to wait for
the old guard to die off. While I don't doubt the attrition of the old
guard can help things, there appear to have been rather fast paradigm
shifts without much death involved. Indeed, in Paul Thagard's recent book
_Conceptual Revolutions_ he presents the very same example you do--the
replacement of phlogiston (soft "g" in English, I think) theory with
Lavoisier's oxygen theory--and shows that almost everyone who believed in
phologiston went with Lavoisier just a few years after the oxygen theory
became widely known. Makes me hope that PCT will take off before we are
all dead and gone.
I don't lke the "conditioning" label between stimulus and response in your
figures. Conditioning refers to the experiences (arrangement of
contingencies) which are supposed to wire up the Ss to the appropriate Rs
but once that is done the connections are considered direct without any
important mediation. Why not just say S-R denies that there is really
anything of interest going on between S and R. Cognitive psychology and AI
and neural networks have mediating processes but it is still a one-way S-R
(or perception-action) path.
You don't need to have people stand on one foot to knock them over with the
eyball manuever. Most people find it hard enough to stand on one foot
WITHOUT eyeball pushing (especially in California with all the seismic
activity and heavy use of mind-altering substances). Instead, just ask
them to stand normally and then move one foot forward about 1 1/2 to 2
feet. This should remove enough lateral stability to knock them over with
the eyeball deformation. If not, you can have them place one foot directly
(or nearly so) in front of the other.
When you have Jim moving the ball in a triangle (I like this a lot), you
should show that his hand also moves in a triangle (without disturbances).
Then start disturbing and show how his hand is no longer tracing a triangle
(variable actions for constant ends).
I think you missed a good opportunity to close the loop with Jim at the end
of your session with him. When you start putting together the CS diagram,
use this opportunity to show that the perceived error between goal and
perception drives Jim's behavior, and that his behavior also changes the
error (or the "stimulus") AT THE SAME TIME. This indeed is what is
revolutionary about PCT--no other theory takes this into account, and this
is something which you have now clearly demonstrated to your audience with
Jim. This can be a "magic moment" of your presentation.
Indeed, thinking about this some more, I don't seem to remember your using
the term "interactive" to describe a control system. PCT is the first
truly interactive view of behavior which provides a foundation for
understanding how individuals interact with stupid environments as well as
other smart control systems (in spite of how some of the people on CSGnet
apparently believe PCT is irrelevant to understanding social interactions).
How about a bit more information on loss of control? One reason is a (a)
very large, sudden disturbance (you show this nicely with your S-R
simulation with Jim). No matter how well a firm is meeting on-time
deliveries, I don't think that if there is a 1000% increase in orders on a
given day that control will be maintained. (b) Loss of control also
results from restricting the actions of the control system. Tell Joe that
he must not move his hand from over the paper or else he will lose his job.
Then apply a large disturbance and show how control is lost. Finally (c)
perceptual limitations (you already show this by blocking Joe's view of the
ball with the card).
It seems at times that you really need the hierarchy to explain how "lower"
needs are and can be changed. You run into this when you field the
question about changing Sally's wanting to come to work on time. I realize
that this is just a short intro presentation, but perhaps the hierarchy is
so important that it needs to be mentioned even here.
Your role playing with Christine certainly seems to have an Ed Ford flavor
to it. Why not mention what it owes to Ed and also take mention that Ed
has worked out this techniques after umpteen years working in detention
centers, schools, private practice, etc.
Congratulations on a very well designed and informative
lecture/demonstration. You have obviously put an enourmous amount of
effort and planning into this--and it shows! It made me realize again how
exciting and revolutionary PCT is. I can't imagine how at least some of
your audience wouldn't also get excited about it.--Gary
P.S. You mentioned in your note something about Major Buhts and something
about spending the $50. Did you send a video to Buhts? If not, I would
gladly pay the $13 for you to send one to him. And what is the $50 thing?
I didn't quite make out your writing on this (another reason I prefer
e-mail).
···
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Cziko Telephone: 217-333-8527
Educational Psychology FAX: 217-244-7620
University of Illinois E-mail: g-cziko@uiuc.edu
1310 S. Sixth Street Radio: N9MJZ
210 Education Building
Champaign, Illinois 61820-6990
USA
------------------------------------------------------------------