Forwarding a Post

Hello all,

In light of the often intense critical debate on this list, I thought people might be interested in this excerpt from the following paper:

Sterman, J. D., & Jason, W. (1999). Path Dependence, Competition, and Succession in the Dynamics of Scientific Revolution. Organization Science, 10(3), 322-341.

The main message for this list I think, is the need to be careful about being too intense in the criticism of new ideas, lest we kill off ones that could in fact be enormously helpful to our profession. At a wider level, I think we should be viewing this forum and others like as a nurturing ground (rather than a testing ground), allowing ideas to mature before letting them out on the wider world.

Regards

Tim Kannegieter

Excerpt:

"The interplay between intrinsic explanatory potential and historical contingency is quite subtle. A paradigm’s inherent potential (its logical force and power to explain nature) does influence its future development: of those paradigms surviving their youth, those with high intrinsic capability do remain dominant longer, on average, than those that are weaker.

But the impact of intrinsic capability on the longevity of any given paradigm is mediated by the competitive conditions in the emergence period. In particular, weak competitive environments make it more likely a new paradigm will rise to dominance, but can condemn even powerful paradigms to early deaths as they are extended too far and too fast, generating anomalies and prematurely destroying confidence.

On the other hand, though competition reduces the likelihood of survival, competition gives those that do survive time to bootstrap themselves into normal science, insulating them against mere disconfirmation, and ensuring they persist until the anomalies ultimately causing revolution, in Kuhn’s words, “penetrate existing knowledge to the core”.

Most important, however, competition does not serve to weed out the weak paradigms so the strong may grow. On the contrary, competition decimates the strong and weak alike -we found that intrinsic capability has but a weak effect on survival.

The mortality rate for paradigms seems to depend almost entirely on the environmental conditions surrounding their birth. This is a sobering result, since we can never know the microlevel contingencies of history that can prove decisive; here favoring an intrinsically weak paradigm, there killing an intrinsically strong theory. These characteristics of the competition among paradigms are consequences of the powerful positive feedback processes operating within and among paradigms. These positive loops can amplify microscopic perturbations in the environment (the local conditions of science, society, and self faced by the creators of a new theory) until they reach macroscopic significance. Such dynamics are the hallmark of path dependent evolutionary systems."

Thx so much fred. Have recently thought of the dynamics and factors involved when a potential for a kuhnian paradigm shift occurs as noted in my recent postings when dialoguing with bill on pct and mol as conceptualized and applied in understanding change and reorganization in families engaged in family therapy. Is a copy of the full text of the article available. Much appreciation for your forwarding of this post. gary padover

[From Rick Marken (2009.07.08.1400)]

Fred Nickols (2009.07.06.1822 EDT)--

I am forwarding a post from a Knowledge Management list I monitor. �It refers
to a paper by John Sterman (one of those pesky system dynamics people in
the Jay Forrester tradition) and a professor at MIT. �This post has to do with
the success/failure of new paradigms. �Gee, seems relevant to PCT doesn't
it? �Anyway, I thought I'd pass it along.

A paradigm's inherent potential (its logical force and power to explain
nature) �does influence its future development...
But the impact of intrinsic capability on the longevity of any given
paradigm is mediated by the competitive conditions in the emergence period.

It sounds like Sterman's point is that the long term success of a new
paradigm depends on how hard fought the battle was to get it to
accepted; the harder the battle, the longer the paradigm survives once
accepted. It sounds like Sterman views a new paradigm as something
like a young athlete; what matters (according to Sterman) is not the
intrinsic ability of the youngster but the difficulty of his road to
stardom. I don't think this is true of athletes or paradigms.

As evidence for his thesis Sterman says: "The mortality rate for
paradigms seems to depend almost entirely on the environmental
conditions surrounding their birth". But he provides no examples (at
least not in the quoted sample) of paradigms that were long or short
lived depending on on how difficult it was to get them accepted (at
least, I think that's what he's saying).

It seems to me that new paradigms -- ones that have significant
intrinsic capability, like Newtonian physics -- regardless of the
difficulty of their birth, last until an even more intrinsically
capable paradigm comes along. So the difficulty that we have had in
getting the closed-loop (PCT) paradigm accepted is not what guarantees
it a long future in the behavioral sciences. It is, rather, it's
explanatory power that guarantees that.

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Fred Nickols (2009.07.08.1714 EDT)]

I also came across some other research (see how casually I use that word) suggesting that people demand more rigorous data in support of views that are contrary to their own than they do of views that are congruent or complementary. Gee. Who'd a thunk it?

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"
  
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM>

[From Rick Marken (2009.07.08.1400)]

>Fred Nickols (2009.07.06.1822 EDT)--
>
> I am forwarding a post from a Knowledge Management list I monitor. It refers
> to a paper by John Sterman (one of those pesky system dynamics people in
> the Jay Forrester tradition) and a professor at MIT. This post has to do with
> the success/failure of new paradigms. Gee, seems relevant to PCT doesn't
> it? Anyway, I thought I'd pass it along.

>> A paradigm's inherent potential (its logical force and power to explain
>> nature) does influence its future development...
>> But the impact of intrinsic capability on the longevity of any given
>> paradigm is mediated by the competitive conditions in the emergence period.

It sounds like Sterman's point is that the long term success of a new
paradigm depends on how hard fought the battle was to get it to
accepted; the harder the battle, the longer the paradigm survives once
accepted. It sounds like Sterman views a new paradigm as something
like a young athlete; what matters (according to Sterman) is not the
intrinsic ability of the youngster but the difficulty of his road to
stardom. I don't think this is true of athletes or paradigms.

As evidence for his thesis Sterman says: "The mortality rate for
paradigms seems to depend almost entirely on the environmental
conditions surrounding their birth". But he provides no examples (at
least not in the quoted sample) of paradigms that were long or short
lived depending on on how difficult it was to get them accepted (at
least, I think that's what he's saying).

It seems to me that new paradigms -- ones that have significant
intrinsic capability, like Newtonian physics -- regardless of the
difficulty of their birth, last until an even more intrinsically
capable paradigm comes along. So the difficulty that we have had in
getting the closed-loop (PCT) paradigm accepted is not what guarantees
it a long future in the behavioral sciences. It is, rather, it's
explanatory power that guarantees that.

Best

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

[From Rick Marken (2009.07.08.2045)]

Fred Nickols (2009.07.08.1714 EDT)--

I also came across some other research (see how casually I use that word)
suggesting that people demand more rigorous data in support of views that
are contrary to their own than they do of views that are congruent or
complementary. �Gee. �Who'd a thunk it?

They might demand it but my experience is that their views remain the
same even when they get it. I think the demand for rigorous data is
often done as a means of controlling for a perception of oneself as
unbiased when, in fact, one does have a strong bias, which is to
maintain control of what one already believes to be true.

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Bill Powers (2009.07.09.0153 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2009.07.08.2045)]

> Fred Nickols (2009.07.08.1714 EDT)--
>
> I also came across some other research (see how casually I use that word)
> suggesting that people demand more rigorous data in support of views that
> are contrary to their own than they do of views that are congruent or
> complementary. Gee. Who'd a thunk it?

RM: They might demand it but my experience is that their views remain the
same even when they get it. I think the demand for rigorous data is
often done as a means of controlling for a perception of oneself as
unbiased when, in fact, one does have a strong bias, which is to
maintain control of what one already believes to be true.

BP: If people demand more rigorous data to overthrow an accepted idea than one that isn't accepted, doesn't that make a certain amount of sense? Think what it would take to convince us that S-R theory works better than PCT.

It occurs to me also that the concept of "more rigorous" makes sense mainly when the data are pretty uncertain to begin with. Is there really much difference in rigor between p < 0.00001 and p < 0.000001? Numerically, yes; but conceptually? If contradictory ideas are both supported beyond reasonable doubt, what's needed is a new idea explaining how both can seem to be right.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2009.07.09.1200)]

Bill Powers (2009.07.09.0153 MDT)

Rick Marken (2009.07.08.2045)]

RM: �They might demand it but my experience is that their views
remain the same even when they get it

BP: If people demand more rigorous data to overthrow an accepted
idea than one that isn't accepted, doesn't that make a certain amount
of sense?

Sure. Fact is, I haven't seen many people demanding more rigorous data
before they'll accept PCT. In fact, I haven't seen people demanding
any data at all. It seems to me that most people who have accepted PCT
have done so because they just like the theory better than whatever
theory they liked before.

In scientific psychology I see no demand for more rigorous data before
accepting PCT and I think this is because PCT is not recognized as a
new paradigm at all. I think most psychologists -- including many who
have accepted PCT -- think of PCT as a new theory, but not a new
paradigm. Psychologists are used to doing research to test new
theories so, to the extent that researchers demand data before
accepting PCT, they demand no more rigor than what they would in order
to switch from, say, the interference to the decay theory of memory.

I think the problem we have had as PCT researchers is not with the
demand for more rigorous data; our data is plenty rigorous. The
problem has been that we have been trying to use this rigor to
convince people to reject the current paradigm (S-R) and accept a new
one (control) when these people see no current paradigm to be rejected
or a new one to be accepted. I think we're talking right past each
other.

I don't think there is anything that be done about this. All research
on PCT is inherently a demonstration of the need for a paradigm shift;
which is a shift to recognizing that behavior is organized around the
control of perceptual variables -- controlled variables -- and that
observed relationships between environmental and behavioral variables
-- the basic observations of research done within the framework of the
current paradigm -- are reflections of the disturbance resistant
characteristics of closed loop control systems. I think this paradigm
shift in only going to happen, however, when the people with the
current paradigm in their heads are no longer around.

On that note, I should mention that my "Revolution" paper, which
announces the impending paradigm shift that is perceptual control
theory, has been out for nearly two months now and it looks like the
conventional paradigm has once again managed to weather the storm
intact. So I'll now begin preparing my next quixotic onslaught. Be
afraid, current paradigm; be very afraid;-)

Best

Rick

···

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

[From Fred Nickols (2009.07.10.0819) EDT)]

I have to agree with Rick. I didn't require a lot of convincing. It has always seemed to me that PCT offers a better explanation of human behavior than anything else. One thing that made it easy is the consistency between PCT and systems thinking. But then my commitment to other theories wasn't all that deep, anyway. I never cared much for operant conditioning as a complete explanation of human behavior (although I think it has a certain power and appeal in certain training tasks).

Where I think persuasion becomes necessary and difficult is when people do have strong commitments to other theories.

···

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

"Assistance at A Distance"
  
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM>

[From Rick Marken (2009.07.09.1200)]

Sure. Fact is, I haven't seen many people demanding more rigorous data
before they'll accept PCT. In fact, I haven't seen people demanding
any data at all. It seems to me that most people who have accepted PCT
have done so because they just like the theory better than whatever
theory they liked before.

[From Bill Powers (2009.07.10.0711 MDT)]

From Fred Nickols (2009.07.10.0819) EDT) --

FN: I have to agree with Rick. I didn't require a lot of convincing. It has always seemed to me that PCT offers a better explanation of human behavior than anything else. One thing that made it easy is the consistency between PCT and systems thinking. But then my commitment to other theories wasn't all that deep, anyway. I never cared much for operant conditioning as a complete explanation of human behavior (although I think it has a certain power and appeal in certain training tasks).

Where I think persuasion becomes necessary and difficult is when people do have strong commitments to other theories.

That's more or less what I'm thinking, too. A person who is committed to some other theory and thinks it works just fine isn't looking for an alternative. So it's almost as if you have to pick a fight to make something else even noticeable. Well, maybe not pick a fight but somehow bring out the conflict between old and new so it has to be taken seriously.

Best,

Bill P.