[From Rick Marken (2000.07.20.0830)]
Bill Powers (2000.07.20.0730 MDT)--
But what was PCT-incorrect in the papers Jeff wrote
or presented?
Nothing, as far as I know. My "hatchet job" was not aimed at
Jeff's papers but, rather, at what he said about them in his post.
Jeff already knows that I liked the paper on nurses controlling
their schedules, which is apparently the one published in the
July issue of _Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes_. I also got a copy of Jeff's _American Psychologist_
comment from him yesterday and thought it was excellent as well.
I've been in touch with Jeff on CSG net and by private e-mail a
bit and I hope I've made it clear to him that I think his recent
PCT-based work has been outstanding, from my point of view.
My "hatchet job" was aimed at two comments Jeff made in his post
that just happen to disturb some variables I'm controlling with,
perhaps, higher than necessary gain. The first was Jeff's comment
about meeting attendance. To me, there is nothing more important
than CSG Meeting attendance for anyone who is seriously interested
in PCT. The fact that Jeff would chose some other meeting over
CSG was _very_ disappointing to me.
The second was Jeff's comment about the TCV. Jeff said:
I have not talked about this paper to you all because I did
not use the TCV. I did not think you would like it.
This disturbed me because it suggests that the test is just
one way to go about studying control systems; the other way
is to use the conventional IV-DV approach. My petulant reply
was meant to communicate the fact that the TCV is not just a
ritual you carry out in order to be seen as a "true" PCTer.
Rather, it is the _only_ reasonable approach to studying
the behavior of systems that are controlling their own
perceptual inputs.
The PCT beef with with the conventional IV-DV approach is not
based on its being the wrong ritual (with the TCV being the
right one) It is based (as you know) on that fact that the
functional relationships between disturbance (IV) and output
(DV) discovered using IV-DV methods (even when carried out
on individuals) reveal characteristics of the environment,
not of the organism (this, of course, is your hugely
important discovery of the _behavioral illusion_).
You say:
The Test for the Controlled Variable doesn't appear in chapter 1
of B:CP: it doesn't even make sense until you have some concept
of how control works. When you try to tell neophytes about control
processes, is the TCV what you start with?
But this was not my point. Of course I don't start with the TCV
when introducing PCT. And neither does Jeff in his excellent
essays on PCT (such as the one in the current _American
Psychologist_). I did not mean to suggest that Jeff (or anyone)
should start explaining PCT in terms of the TCV. I was reacting
(as I noted above) to the fact that Jeff had done research
based on control theory (Jeff says "based on Bill P.s comment
in AP (1991)") using conventional IV-DV methods and found (as
usual) a "weak [statistical] relationship" between IV and DV.
Actually, I wasn't even bothered by the fact that Jeff had done
that kind of research. I was just bothered by Jeff saying that
he didn't think we would "like it", as though doing research
using the TCV was some kind of odd preference of PCTers.
Anyway, I am sorry if I offended you, Jeff. I think you are
doing _very good work_ on PCT and doing a great job of
bringing PCT to the attention of conventional psychologists.
It's really because of that that I am so disappointed
that you are not coming to the CSG meeting.
Hasta luego
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com