[From Rick Marken (970226.1430 PST)]
Bruce Abbott (970226.1100 EST)--
I am not advocating exclusive use of open-loop analytic methods.
I have a hammer for nails and a screwdriver for screws, and I
know which tool to use on which.
You mean you've been using the appropriate research tools for the job
all along? Could you point me to some of your published research where
you use The Test. The only time I'm aware of you husing The Test is in
the weight control study -- and even then, Bill's efforts to guide you
toward the use of that tool seemed a lot like trying to guide a kid to
the vegetables behind the cake.
Me:
You can't break intact organisms out of their closed loop
relationship with respect to their sensory inputs and study the
input-output relationships in the loop. Sorry.
Bruce:
Yes you can, and I provided an example which you chose to ignore,
that of judging the straightness of a line.
How is this an example of breaking open the closed loop? Are you
thinking that there is an open loop relationship between the line
and the judgement? Are you seriously proposing that lines cause
judgements of straightness that are proportional to the straightness
of the lines?
Maybe this is why my "Blind men..." paper didn't make much of an
impression on you. Apparently you think that some perceptions can
"sneak through" the closed loop and have open loop effects on
responses.
Maybe it would help if you asked yourself this: is there anything
happening at your sensors (retinae, cochleae, skin, nose etc) that is
not influenced by what you are doing (or not doing)?
You seem to believe that variables cannot be perceived without
being controlled.
Not at all. Some perceptual variables are controlled, some aren't.
The Test is aimed at finding out which perceptions are the former
and which are the latter.
As I said, for you every system is a control system, and can only
be studied as such.
No, but all living systems are control systems.
Here I give a nice example of studying a function in an open-loop
situation
The only example of a closed loop situation you gave is the one where
a "perceptual function" is removed from the closed loop for study. You
have not described one behavioral situation where there is an open loop
relationship between the sensory effects of an IV and and behavioral
results of those sensory effects. In the line judgement case the DV
(judgement) is not caused by the line (IV) but by sensory variables
influenced by the line -- sensory variables that are themselves
influenced by the DV (judgements) or variables related to the DV.
I also know that these cognitive processes can be studied under
open-loop conditions
If you are studying these cognitive processes by varying an IV and
measuring a DV then you are not studying these processes under
open-loop conditions; if the IV actually has an effect on the DV (via
sensory effects on the organism) then the DV is also having an effect
on the sensory effects of the IV.
You're not claiming that the only way to examine a function
open-loop is by dissection, are you?
No. You can also eliminate the connection from output to input via
the environment. But to do that you have to know which input variable
is related to the output variable. And this must be done while the
system is still closed loop with respect to the input variable. So
(you guessed it) you have to do The Test to determine which variable
is controlled before you can know how to make the organism open loop
with respect to that variable.
The only valid question to ask of a living organism [according to
Rick] is, "what are you controlling?"
It's not the only valid question. But it certainly should be one of
the FIRST questions. Since it is a question that is NEVER asked
AT ALL by psychological researchers, I tend to wax emphatic about
it's importance.
As a psychologist, you are of course aware that all these
questions were asked and answered a long time ago, but I bring
them up to illustrate research questions that do not focus on
what is being controlled and yet are interesting in their own right.
These questions are interesting, all right, but they are based on a
misconception about how organisms are organized. So they are the WRONG
questions. We know that researchers have asked questions besides "what
is being controlled?". In fact, they have NEVER asked "what is being
controlled?" The only questions they have asked are those "other
questions" because they have no idea that organisms are control
systems.
There's nothing wrong with identifying controlled variables
Great. You should try it some time;-)
Now you are pretending that my argument is that I think other
types of research are more important than research on controlled
variables. I argued for no such idea.
You argue for it with your words and your behavior. There are thousands
of behavioral researchers out there and NOT ONE is trying to test for
controlled variables. If you really thought testing for controlled
variables were anywhere near as important as conventional IV-DV
methods you would make some effort to change this state of affairs.
Yet you don't explain how to do this type of research in your methods
text, you don't teach this type of research to your students and you
don't do this kind of research yourself (except when Bill Powers is
watching over you). I'm thinking that you are not controlling for
perceiving The Test as a big part of psychological science;-)
By the way, I see the question of _what_ specific perceptions are
under control as of only limited interest.
Well, we learn something new everyday. That would certainly explain
your lack of interest in The Test.
What is controlled often changes moment by moment.
Do you know what a perceptual _variable_ is?
I prefer to keep my toolbox well stocked. That means that it
contains more than just a hammer.
Well, it would be nice if you would actually _use_ that hammer
sometimes, lend it to your colleagues when you see them banging
a nail with a screwdriver and teach your students how to use it.
Best
Rick