[From Rick Marken (950923.1730)]]
Brian D'Agostino (950923.1140) --
You take my description of behavior as control system output and you add
he word "caused" before "output." This one word "caused," which appears
nowhere in my description of control systems, is intended to discredit my
article in the eyes of any right-thinking CSG member.
I am not trying to discredit your article; I am criticizing it from the
perspective of a priest of PCT (by the way, PCT consists of priests only; we
have and want no "followers"; you become a priest of PCT by observing
living systems on your own, becoming convinced that they are controlling
their perceptions and then learning control theory to see how this process
works).
What you actually quote from my article, however, is standard control
theory, which would have been no cause for concern if uttered by you or
Bill or another member of the priesthood.
Ok. Let's take a look at what you said: "In the control theory framework,
all human behavior can be viewed as the output of one or another control
system..."
PCT shows that the term "behavior" as commonly used in the behavioral
sciences is ambiguous: it refers to 1) intended results of action 2) the
actions that produce these results and 3) irrelevant (unintended) side
effects of these actions. An intended result of action might be "making
the world safe for democracy"; an action aimed at producing this result
might be "bombing Hanoi into the stone age" and an unintended result of
this action might be the most delightful period of drugs, sex and rock
and roll that I have ever known;-).
Of these three types of "behavior", only the actions that produce intended or
unintended results could reasonably by called the "outputs" of a control
system; only these actions are directly caused by the control system alone,
even though they are part of a closed causal loop.
If any member of the PCT priesthood had said what you said about
behavior, they would have been corrected by another member of the
priesthood, just as I am correcting you. It's business -- not
personal;-)
What is it about my article that disturbs something you are controlling,
and what is this controlled variable?
I am controlling for a correct representation of PCT as I see it. Your
comments were a disturbance to this perception; I experienced them as a
misleading representation of PCT. If you feel that you already understand
PCT then I can see that my criticisms would be a disturbance to your
perception of the "PCT correctness" of your article. I can also see why you
would see my comments and criticisms as an attempt to "banish" you "to
the outer darkness". Ultimately, how you feel about what I say is up to you;
if you can develop an attitude of wanting to learn PCT, then we on CSG-L
can teach you. If your attitude is that you already know PCT, then our
efforts to teach you will only look like attempts at ostracism.
Applying this [causal] label to me and the academic mainstream, however,
makes you feel that you can "comfortably ignore" everything we publish
or say.
It's not a label; it's a fact. The regression model assumes that behavior
(dependent variable) is a function of other variables (independent
variables). This is what we call a causal model; it assumes that behavior is
the last step in a causal chain. PCT shows that behavior (actions and
results) occurs in a causal loop; behavior is the control of perception.
It's a whole different ball game and not one that can be played with the
old equipment. Well, you can use regression in PCT, but not the way it is
used conventionally; it must be used as part of a process called "testing
for controlled variables". The "test" (as this process is know) is similar
to conventional hypothesis testing in the behavioral science, but different.
You'll read about it in B:CP.
My article disturbs this comfortable feeling of being the master of all
worthwhile knowledge by raising the specter that "PCT" is not a substitute
for psychoanalysis, or political science, or survey research, or
psychological testing, or statistical methods
Rather than just "raising the specter ", why not create a real big disturbance
by explaining exactly _why_ PCT is not a substitute for psychoanalysis, or
political science, or survey research, or psychological testing, or
statistical methods. Then deliver the knock-out punch by showing, with data,
what these approaches to living systems can handle that PCT can't.
This acceptance by the mainstream is in itself an error signal for the
priesthood
I would be thrilled if PCT were accepted by the mainstream. Our apparent
rejection of acceptance results from the fact that virtually all mainstream
acceptance of PCT has been of the wrong model; the PCT that the mainstream
accepts is not the PCT I know and love. This is a very weird and difficult
problem for those of us who would LOVE acceptance. . It's wonderful to have
people like Carver and Scheier, William Glasser, etc.etc. accept PCT. But
it gets weird when you realize that what they accept is only the verbal
description of PCT that is consistent with what the mainstream already
accepts. This is weird because it puts us (the PCT priesthood) in the
uncomfortable position of having to "dis" people who love PCT. It's as
though Galileo had priests running up to him saying "I love that Copernican
theory of yours. It sure blows Ptolomy out of the water. I especially like
the idea that the sun goes around the earth". Whaddaya do about this?
The basic idea behind PCT is VERY simple: organsms act to control their
own perceptual experience. This control process can look like responding
to stimulation, selection by reinforcement or planned output. This appearnace
has led to the development of research methods aimed at studying the
relationship between stimulus and response, selection of responses by
reinforcements and mental processing that turns plans into outputs. PCT
shows that these research methods deal only with the irrelevant side effects
of control; in order to understand how organisms work, we have to learn
what perceptions they are controlling.
Mainstream acceptance of these tenets of PCT will be quite welcome by me.
Control systems are the only reality, and only the PCT priesthood have the
gnosis (the laity, who tolerate impurity, continually threaten to undermine
the mission of converting the world to PCT).
Control systems are the only way we know of to model the phenomenon of
control. PCT is about the controlling done by living organisms. I think
all of us in CSG welcome and encourage any efforts by anyone to show that
PCT is wrong. If you have any data that seems inconsistent with PCT then
please present it here on the net.
There is nothing we in the PCT priesthood welcome more than attempts to
clearly expose the flaws in PCT. Every time one of the PCT priests does an
experiment based on the PCT model he or she is exposing the model to
disproof (or, at least, to the need for revision). Challenging PCT with
experimental test is what the PCT priesthood is all about; it is the way
we hold mass (no, the cursor does not become the body of Powers;-)).
I don't want to be part of this, any more than you want my research to
contaminate PCT.
Feel free to do what you want. But I think we all welcomed the fact that you
presented research results that, you felt, provided support for the PCT model.
The fact that we felt that the research was not a good test of PCT doesn't
mean that it was a "contaminant"; you just have to learn how to go about
building and testing a PCT model of "miltarism". If you want to learn,
we're here to teach; if you think you already know what you are doing then
we will probably just get in the way.
Best
Rick