[from Jeff Vancouver 000114.1000]
Yesterday I got feedback from the action editor on the paper to which Rick
refers to in his Kudos post. It had been through two revise and resubmits
at the journal and only one issue seems to remain. One of the reviewers
thought that I had "cooked" the systems dynamics model to match the shown
participant's data. That was easy to counter, particularly if he was able
to download the model (which because of a server problem, he had not been
able to do before). Indeed, the point was quickly dismissed, with the
reviewer admitting his/her error.
Unfortunately, the actual model raised more flags for the reviewer. The
biggest being that the model was trivial. This prompted the action editor
to suggest dropping the model portion from the paper (something the reviewer
also suggested) given that the test for the controlled variable (TCV) and
other analysis (HLM) of the "experimental" data was sufficiently interesting
to merit publishing the paper without the model. He also listed options
regarding standing my ground, but after speaking with him, I am inclined to
drop the model.
The reasons for dropping are essentially two. First, the model IS trivial.
The point of the model was to introduce the modeling method to the study of
goal-striving (i.e., the study of human behavior). I wanted to keep it
simple so as not to loose the uninitiated. Of course the initiated (i.e.,
the reviewer) was completely unimpressed, and the uninitiated (the action
editor) did not see the value added over a verbal description. It seems to
me that what is needed to articulate the value added is substantial verbal
persuasion or a more complicated model that reveals and explains some
phenomenon difficult to understand without the model. In fact, it is this
latter situation that is the value of the modeling and my students and I are
working on studies like that. We have also almost finished a paper that
does the first thing (provides persuasive arguments for the value of the
modeling by explicitly distinguishing it from the type of modeling - and
control theory from the type of theorizing - typical in my literature).
This is the second reason for dropping the model from the current paper - I
will fight that battle elsewhere (my plan is to send it to a different
journal) for I still believe the uninitiated need a simple exemplar.
I would like to put a spin on this turn of events that might be non-obvious.
I think that the reviewer and editor thought the model was trivial because
they have no problem with the control theory explanation of goal-striving.
Hence, it showed what we already know. This is an argument I have been
making on this net for some time (which may explain my obviously biased and
wrongheaded interpretation of this turn of events). Anyway, that is my
take.
Finally, I could use some help on a few things. Because we have this second
paper that focuses on the model, model issues are still relevant. Besides
the triviality issue, the reviewer had some trouble with the units in the
model. He/she did not understand the neural units as a unit for
within-system signals (I know this was part of debate between Bill P. and
the Vensim guy with, last I saw, no resolution). I am inclined to stick to
my guns and, like Bill, continue to use neural units (although this time I
am going to head it off in the paper rather than hoping no one notices).
The second unit problem (I actually don't need help on the first) is that I
have a dimensionless level variable. I am just not clever enough to get
around this eloquently and was hoping a modeler could help. The model can
be downloaded from my web site
(http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~vancouve/research.html) if anyone was so
inclined and could help (Fred? Marc?).
The other thing I am wondering about is the Pressing article (1999,
Psychological Review). Recall, this is the article Mary Powers pointed to
as an example of the wrong-headedness of "cognitive" psychologists. Anyway,
I am about halfway through it. It is much more in Martin Taylor's (and
Rick's) areas of expertise (i.e., motor control) than mine, but I get the
impression it is not nearly as wrongheaded as Mary implied. In particular,
she did not understand Figure 1. When she brought it up I found it, looked
at Figure 1 and scratched my head as well, seeing Mary's point. However,
now that I have read more of it, I realize that Figure 1 is simply a general
depiction of the model Bill P. tested in his 1992 piece on cognitive control
systems (a chapter in Dynamic Psychological Systems). In particular, Figure
1 depicts an exogenous input to the system via a sensor and to the
comparator AS A GOAL. It turns out that it is simply depicting what Bill
did when he has "instructions" come from the environment to determine the
goal level.
The other thing Pressing does in Figure 1 is label the "controlled variable"
the "controlled system" with the external observer's signal of that labeled
"regulated variable(s)". Finally, he emphasizes aspects of the model that
are different from what Bill and Rick emphasize. But to me, through my
apparently fuzzy lens, what Pressing talks about is amazingly similar to
Bill's model, only Pressing uses a completely different citation list
(except Ashby). So has anyone else read the article? (If I missed this in
a previous thread, I apologize. Just point me in the right direction).
If there are substantial differences, it seems that opens the opportunity to
pit the models. Pitting models is very publishable.
Thanks for your time,
Jeff
P.S. Rick, apparently I am controlling for you not thinking I am the real
deal.