Hi Bill, Lewys has reworded his
question a bit.
Hi, Warren –
Again, I’m copying this response to CSGnet.
Hi
Warren,Thanks for passing that on. I see Bill’s point about theoretical bias and
whatthe term “vicarious conditioning” implies. I suppose I was
really concernedwith imitation and how through observing another’s attempts to reach/
maintaina particular reference value and indeed control their personal perception
howthis could alter another individuals control system leading them to
strive forwhat appears to be the same reference value?
Would the observer need to have some basis for the observed goal to start
withi.e. a new or reorganised control system at a lower level which could be
seento facilitate a goal at a higher level?
These are all theoretical questions, not observations. We do not observe
“another’s attempt to reach a reference value” because we don’t
observe either what perception another person is experiencing or the
reference value that person is setting for that experience. What I am
trying to recommend is that we begin all enquiries like this by stripping
off all theoretical terms and all “facts” which we only
imagine, and constructing a true description of an observation. Just
changing the words one uses isn’t enough.
Yes, the observer would “need to have some basis for
the observed goal to start with.” That’s my whole point. We
do not observe goals in other people – so what is it that we DO observe?
What evidence are we looking at that could be seen by one person as
passive conditioning, and by another as active reorganization? Evidence
that one observer would call a response to a stimulus, and another would
call opposition to a disturbance or an attempt to reach a goal-condition?
A true description of an observation would avoid favoring either
interpretation, so we can start from a neutral position and build up the
cases for both interpretations. Then we can weigh the evidence and choose
the theory that explains the most details with the most accuracy. In that
way we can avoid the accusation (and the reality) of supporting a theory
for reasons that are mainly personal and not scientific – a theory that
is, therefore, quite likely wrong.
I guess what this Very Old Man is saying is “slow down!” Be
patient and lay the foundation first. Let the conclusions be what they
will. Have faith that a conclusion reached from a firm set of premises
and minimally biased observations will be worth every scrap of work
required to get to it, no matter what it turns out to be. I know, I’m an
idealist when it comes to science, but I’ve never had reason to regret
it. So far. When I remember to act that way.
Best,
Bill P.