Linguistics

[From Rick Marken (01.02.14.0800)]

Bruce Nevin (01.02.13 19:40 EST)--

I have said many times that Generativist Linguistics is a crock,
and I said I was talking about descriptive linguistics.

Sorry. I didn't pick that up. Sounded like you were talking about
language as a self-organizing system.

Me:

I don't think I'll have much chance to read these.

Ye:

Then you don't have time to find out what I'm talking about.

Is it really impossible to discuss it on CSGNet? What's CSGNet
for, anyway?

But if you don't find out what I'm talking about, I don't
think you should tell me what I'm talking about.

I'm sorry you feel like I was telling you what you were
talking about. From my perspective I was just trying to
understand and reply to what you were saying.

Even in this exchange, you are not concerned with what I am
talking about.

If I weren't, then I wouldn't have replied. In a sense you're right,
though. What I am concerned about is the state of the variables I
control. What you said was apparently a disturbance to one of those
variables. So I was not concerned with what you were talking about
so much as its effect on the state of a controlled variable. I think
this is almost always the case when we have discussions on CSGNet.
People are concerned about the state of the variables (beliefs,
mainly) they are controlling for. When other people say things that
are a disturbance to those variables we get discussion. Unfortunately,
we also get in fights because we notice who is the source of the
disturbance (it's usually at the top of every post) and realize that
we wouldn't have to take to trouble to defend our beliefs if we could
just get the source of the disturbance to stop saying those things;-)

You are omitting the point that a side effect that is irrelevant
for control of proximity can be relevant for control of being
perceived by others in an unwanted way...Consequences that are
unintended with respect to control of one variable can disturb
one's control of another variable.

I "omitted" this point, not because I was not concerned about what
you were talking about but because it wasn't a disturbance to
anything I am controlling for. I think it's a good point, though
I don't see it's relevance to my main interest in this conversation,
which is encouraging language research based on the idea that
language behaviors are side effects of the control of perceptions
that may not be anything like the aspects of language described
by "descriptive linguistics".

Me:

But I would like to know what you think constitutes a linguistic
test for a controlled variable.

Ye:

I've done this before. You could search for pair test in the archives.

I still don't quite see this as an actual test for the controlled
variable. I may have agreed that it was at one point. If so, I
don't know why. It seems to be missing some crucial elements of
the test. For example, what is the hypothesized controlled variable?
How are disturbances to this variable introduced? Where is the
observation that the variable is protected from the disturbances?

There are further issues of course, and more is done to identify
just what the controlled variables are (a difficult task because
a great many are controlled at once, with redundancy among them
which enables sometimes very "sloppy" control to be adequate where
other times very precise control of the same variable is necessary)

I don't think the number of simultaneously controlled variables
is ever a problem. Organisms are always controlling many variables
simultaneously and the actions used to control some variables are
often disturbances to the state of other controlled variables. But
this creates no problem unless there is conflict. I think the
difficulty of doing the test on language behavior comes from the
fact that the variables that are controlled in language behavior
can only be perceived by people -- indeed, by people who speak the
language under study. There are no machines that can measure the
state of a variable like "degree of sarcasm", for example. So
linguistic tests, especially tests of high level variables, like
sarcasm, will be "instrumented" by human informants. But that's
why linguistic PCT research would be so nice; it would show how
we can test for controlled variables that can only be perceived,
at present, by one kind of measuring device: the human brain.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0214.1141)]

Rick Marken (01.02.14.0800)

What I am concerned about is the state of the variables I
control. What you said was apparently a disturbance to one of those
variables. So I was not concerned with what you were talking about
so much as its effect on the state of a controlled variable. I think
this is almost always the case when we have discussions on CSGNet.
People are concerned about the state of the variables (beliefs,
mainly) they are controlling for. When other people say things that
are a disturbance to those variables we get discussion. Unfortunately,
we also get in fights because we notice who is the source of the
disturbance (it's usually at the top of every post) and realize that
we wouldn't have to take to trouble to defend our beliefs if we could
just get the source of the disturbance to stop saying those things;-)

Excellent summary. It should be posted prominently on the CSG site as a
caveat emptor. We all need to be reminded from time to time of the way
CSGnet works.

BG

[From Rick Marken (01.02.14.0920)]

Me:

When other people say things that are a disturbance to those
variables we get discussion. Unfortunately, we also get in fights
because we notice who is the source of the disturbance (it's
usually at the top of every post) and realize that we wouldn't
have to take to trouble to defend our beliefs if we could just
get the source of the disturbance to stop saying those things;-)

Bruce Gregory (2001.0214.1141) --

Excellent summary.

Thanks.

We all need to be reminded from time to time of the way
CSGnet works.

Not just CSGNet but all discussion works this way, all too
often. Because people are hierarchical control systems, they
can often perceive not only the state of a variable (such as
some system concept that matters a great deal to them) that
is being disturbed by certain comments but also the source
of the disturbance (comments) itself. This can lead to the person
defending against the _source_ of the disturbance, defenses
which take the form of ad hominum attacks, insults, sarcasm
and demands that the source of the disturbance stop saying
anything on the subject. I don't think reminding people about
this will help much. When people are controlling for for a belief
that is very important to them they will do whatever they can
do to protect controlled variables from disturbance, including
attacks on the source of the disturbance. The only way to deal
with this, as far as I can tell, is for those who are the source
of these disturbance to know what's going on and adjust their
disturbances so that they keep variables affected by the
responses to those disturbances (variables such as civility,
peace, good humor and friendly relations with others) under
control.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0214.1254)]

Rick Marken (01.02.14.0920)

> We all need to be reminded from time to time of the way
> CSGnet works.

Not just CSGNet but all discussion works this way, all too
often.

CSGnet exists, as far as I can tell, to defend PCT orthodoxy. You and Bill
are rarely, if ever, open to new ideas. More accurately, you treat anything
you are not familiar with as a potential attack on PCT. Everyone who is not
a sycophant is treated as an apostate. Your posts are a good example. You
simply ignore points that you cannot attack. B:CP is the catechism of the
movement. If it's not in B:CP it is highly suspect. In the future, I'll do
my best to stop perturbing the variables that you and Bill protect with
such passion. As Einstein wrote to Schroedinger, "The Heisenberg-Bohr
tranquillizing philosophy - or religion? - is so delicately contrived that,
for the time being, it provides a gentle pillow for the true believer from
which he cannot very easily be aroused."

BG

[From Mike Acree (2001.02.14.1030 PST)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0214.1254)--

CSGnet exists, as far as I can tell, to defend PCT orthodoxy. You and Bill
are rarely, if ever, open to new ideas. More accurately, you treat anything
you are not familiar with as a potential attack on PCT. Everyone who is not
a sycophant is treated as an apostate. Your posts are a good example. You
simply ignore points that you cannot attack. B:CP is the catechism of the
movement. If it's not in B:CP it is highly suspect.

While there's much evidence to support your unhappy conclusion, it's also
fair to point out an important example where Bill's though has moved on from
B:CP, clearly demonstrating his openness to new ideas (from what source, I
don't know): But it took me a long time to figure out that he no longer
agrees with all of Chapter 17 himself, and regards some of it as youthful
naivete.

Mike