[Martin Taylor 2010.03.17.12.11]
[From Rick Marken (2010.03.17.0900)]
...
something that I haven't really understood -- or at least haven't
articulated to myself -- in the 30+ years that I've been working in
this field (study of living control systems). What I realized is that
many people don't grasp the _general_ implications of the basic
demonstrations of control, such as the computer tracking experiments
and the rubber band demo.
This is very true. I'm surprised you are only now realizing it. It's something I have long had a problem getting across to people. They say "Yes, we know that we can describe the feedback systems and analyze them when we are tracking a simple cursor, but how does that relate to why I get mad at my husband when he doesn't put the top on the toothpaste?" I haven't said this before, but the failure to address this problem is, I think, a difficulty with LCS III. B:CP was better in that area, as have been many of Bill's other writings. None, however, seem really to bridge the gap between what is obvious tracking control and control in everyday life.
It might be worth generating a thread on techniques for getting the relation between tracking and the rest of life across to both "official" psychologists and the journalistic kind -- and to the public more generally.
Any ideas?
Martin
[From Rick Marken (2010.03.17.0940)]
Martin Taylor (2010.03.17.12.11) --
Rick Marken (2010.03.17.0900)]
� ...
something that I haven't really understood -- or at least haven't
articulated to myself -- in the 30+ years that I've been working in
this field (study of living control systems). What I realized is that
many people don't grasp the _general_ implications of the basic
demonstrations of control, such as the computer tracking experiments
and the rubber band demo.
This is very true. I'm surprised you are only now realizing it.
Yes, I have realized it. I guess I was thinking more specifically in
the context of experimental psychology. Bill used tracking experiments
to illustrate the possible problems involved in studying closed loop
systems as though they were input-output systems. He showed that in
the tracking task the disturbance is equivalent to the IV in
experiments, the output is equivalent to the DV and the CV is rarely
noticed. It's this mapping of a closed loop task (tracking) to
conventional psychology experiments that seems to be difficult for
research psychologists to understand. In response to many of my papers
the reviewers often say something like "Sure this is true of tracking
but behavior in conventional experiments is open loop; so what you say
is irrelevant to experimental psychology in general".
I saw the general implications of the tracking task as soon as I read
Bill's 1978 _Psych Review_ paper; maybe that's why I got so excited
about PCT back then and no one else did.
It might be worth generating a thread on techniques for getting the relation
between tracking and the rest of life across to both "official"
psychologists and the journalistic kind -- and to the public more generally.
Any ideas?
I made a start in my reply to BG in the post entitled "Studying
Control". I'd appreciate getting your comments and/or suggestions on
that.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com