Irrelevant side effects of control

CSGnet Archive CSG1995
1

[From Rick Marken (951017.2100)]

Bruce Abbott (951017.2110 EST) --u

my problem with the phrase "irrelevant side-effect" as a way to characterize
what researchers using "conventional methods" have been studying is that it
tends to suggest rather strongly that what these researchers study is
"irrelevant" in some more general sense; that it is uninteresting, useless,
a waste of time, unimportant.

Well, they may not be irrelevant in some more "general sense" but they are
certainly irrelevant in the specific sense that they are uninteresting,
useless, a waste of time and unimportant to people who want to understand
purposeful behavior. I think the phrase "irrelevant side effects of control"
communicates this fact rather nicely.

My argument and example were intended to show...that these phenemona are
far from uninteresting and that research on them is far from useless,
unimportant, "irrelevant."

There is no need to argue this; I agree completely. These phenomena (the
side effects of control) are extremely interesting to conventional
psychologists; indeed, THAT'S THE PROBLEM! The study of the side effects
of control is NOT useless, unimportant or irrelevant to conventional
psychologists; it can get you grants, income, fame, textbooks, tenure,
and people who treat you like you're real smart and stuff like that. The
study of the side effects of control is only useless, unimportant and
irrelevant to those of us who want to understand purposeful behavior.

I attempted to show instead that the simple observation of these
"irrelevant side-effects" could yield important insights as to the
nature of the control system whose behavioral actions are
being observed in these cases.

Well, I didn't notice you trying to _show_ that the simple observation
of side effects of control (like the "courtship rituals" of some birds)
"could yield important insights as to the nature of the control system
whose behavioral actions are being observed"; all I noticed was you trying
to _say_ this over and over. On the other hand, my "mind reading" demo
does _show_ that the simple observation of side effects of control (like
mouse movements or the pattern of movements of the numbers on the screen)
yields no insights at all about the nature of the control system whose
"behavioral actions" are being observed.

Maybe you could build a demo to show the kind of important insights
about a system that can be gained by studying the side effects of the
controlling done by this system.

Rick

2

[Avery.Andrews 951018]
  (Rick Marken (951017.2100))

'Irrelevant' side effects can actually be quite important if you want to
understand why an animal has evolved so as to act the way it does. For
example the production of a termite mound in the African or Aussie bush
is undoubtedly an `irrelevant' side effect of what the termites are
controlling for (something to do with pheromones, would be the usual guess),
but the properties of those mounds are quite important if one wants to
know why the bugs are controlling for one thing rather than another,
in that the pheromone control systems have presumably evolved subject to
the constraint that they result in the manufacture of shelter for the termite
queen and offspring.

And, it seems to me that if you insist on knowing nothing about the why's,
your not likely to get very far with the what's, either.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au

3

[Shannon Williams 951018]

[Avery.Andrews 951018]

it seems to me that if you insist on knowing nothing about the why's,
your not likely to get very far with the what's, either.

How do we determine the 'why' before we determine the 'what'? Until we
determine 'what is being controlled' (temperature), how can we say
why the mound exists? Until we determine 'what is being controlled' (a
child's sense of hunger), how can we say why the child is crying?

Shannon

4

[From Rick Marken (951018.0745)]

Shannon Williams (951018) --

Until we determine 'what is being controlled' (temperature), how can we say
why the mound exists? Until we determine 'what is being controlled' (a
child's sense of hunger), how can we say why the child is crying?

What a great post!

From the clarity and incisiveness of your post I take it that you are NOT a

psychologist;-)

Who are you? Where have you been all my life?

Love

Rick