[From Rick Marken (991022.0740)]
Bill Powers (991021.2003 MDT)--
We have a perfectly straightforward case of two models which
can't both be right. One says that perceptual events trigger
off well-oiled habitual responses, and the other says that
>responses will vary as needed to create the desired outcomes
of behavior, as appropriate to disturbances
Martin Taylor (991022 09:56) --
I'm not sure the situation is so black and white.
Gee, you were doing so well there;-) Yes, it is a black and
white distinction; see the Bourbon and Powers paper in your
own IJHMS to see how clearly the distinction can be made.
I think, for example, of the time when I was writing a lot
about signal detection theory. I type pretty fast, and I found
time after time when I wanted to write, say, "detecting" I would
write "d e t c t i o erase n g". It certainly seems like a
sequence of "well- oiled habitual responses."
Interesting example (it happens to me all the time, to) And it
does certainly _seem_ like one is producing a well- oiled, habitual
response. But I would bet (based on my confidence in the PCT
model and all the research done to test it) that what is
being produced is a well-oiled, habitual _perception_. The
mistake you are making is setting a _reference_ for "detection"
rather than "detecting". The time to fix things is the time
is takes to revise the reference. I'm sure you would see this
if you were able to introduce a disturbance just before the
reference is changed from "detection" to "detecting"; you would
briefly act to protect the perception from becoming "detecting",
and then let the change hold once the reference is revised.
You can see something like this happen in the "Levels of Control"
demo at http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html.
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: email@example.com