From Ken Hacker 
In response to Rick Marken --
You perceive, therefore you are. You are, therefore you perceive.
That's ideology, my friend.
Arrogance in what is called scientific activity is closing doors to
inquiry and citing mathematics or "working models" or experiments as
the only acceptable form of reasoning about knowledge claims. I understand
the PCT is making solid claims and shaking sacred ground; I like that and
find it invigorating. But I prefer reasoning based on data as opposed to
reasoning based on someone in PCT says it's so and therefor you must
accept it or as Mary implies, you are an idiot if you do not accept
this perspective lock, stock, and barrel. Science is based on data and
religion is based on faith. I want more data and less faith in regard to
Of course, Rick, if any of this bothers you, remember that such a thing
is impossible. You are bothering yourself; my words hold no information --
any feelings or reactions you have now are produced by yourself. Therefore,
if you ticked, you had better castigate yourself, right?
Alfred Whitehead argued that all things are always in process, so that
knowledge about anything requires movement back and forth among a variety
of perspectives. I think this is needed with theories of human behavior.
Various perspectives offer knowledge about different aspects of behavior.
Thus, anthropology is no less valid or more valid than PCT, just different
in what it chooses to study. Now comparing PCT to behaviorism or
cognitivism is certainly different and I can see that PCT could offer some
pushes toward a paradigm shift in the study of internal self-regulation and
production of behavior. I think that is the central strength of
PCT as I have observed it so far. I see no contributions of PCT, thus far,
to any claims about social interaction, societies, social systems,
organizations, cultures, or language. It may be that PCT does not wish to
explain any of this stuff, but all of it is essential to human behaviors
at some level. Maybe, as Klaus Krippendorff told me, control theory is
best suited to explaining physical movements of human beings more than
I believe that humans behavior is most wholly a matter of self-organization,
and hence, I remain interested in PCT, in part because I see psychology as
limited in describing the processes versus variables of human thinking and
adapting. Each human regulates his.her behaviors to maintain certain goal
states. I believe that when a sensor provides feedback to the comparator
and the comparator guides the activator, that the behaviors produced by the
activator generate external feedforward-feedback loops which are what I
study as social interaction. In other words, I think there is a social loop
to human behavior and control which does not deny, negate, replace, or
override the internal loops and levels described by PCT, and which exists
when the control system is in contact with other control systems.
All conscious, purposeful, and deliberate human behavior requires feedback.
Feedback is not a simple or singular structure/process in a complex control
system such as a human. A guided missile adjusts its course and hits its
target in adapting its motion to the received feedback of radio waves it
has directed and had sent back to it from its target. A human receives
messages that are sent back in relation to messages that have been sent out.
Whether internal or external, or both, the control system still counteracts
or amplifies deviation. I am not arguing that feedback from other humans
comes orginally from then; my points is that we include other humans in loops
of feedback which we create. Wiener said, "This matter of social feedback is
of very great sociological and anthropological interest." I agree, but I
dont think that he or anyone else has demonstrated why YET.
Cheers, Ken Hacker