Locke, stock and barrel

[From Rick Marken (940921.1900)]

Ah, I am getting posts on the day they were posted, for the time being,
anyway.

Jeff Vancouver (940921) --

I could argue that you are as guilty as Locke for deliberate ignorance,
but you will say you have read (at least some) of their stuff.

Not only that, but the two articles you sent are right here in front of
me.

if you don't have something constructive to say, do not say anything.
But you will respond that you do have something constructive to say,
namely, don't waste your time looking at the work of these
researchers. Yet, that is the deliberate ignorance you just railed
against.

In fact, I say "look at the work of these researchers carefully and you
will see why, what they are doing, has nothing to do with
understanding purposeful behavior". What is wrong (from a PCT
perspective) with the work of Locke, et al is what is wrong with
conventional psychology in general. The PCT literature is one long,
careful, model and research-based explanation of why the kind of
research and "theory" found in Locke's articles tells us nothing about
the nature of control. Believe me, if there were anything of even the
slightest value in Locke's papers -- anything that could be used to
leverage a PCT based approach to research and theory in this area
(which seems to be called "goal setting")-- I would run with it
immediately. But there isn't; in fact, there isn't even anything to argue
against (with models and research); it is just, plain irrelevant.

The only thing that distinguishes Locke's work from the rest of the
research in conventional psychology is his attempt to use the
vocabulary of PCT (or, at least, of control theory). But it is all just
words; there are no tests for controlled variables, no one-person-at-a-
time research, no working models of control, nothing but the SOS
(same old fecal material). This has nothing to do with access to "the
truth". It has to do with understanding the nature of purposeful
behavior, how to model it and how to study it. Locke et al are clueless
about this -- as is most of the rest of the conventional psychological
community. Clearly, these people are happy with the kind of research
they are doing and what they are learning from it. I'm glad that they
are happy. You are the one who seems to think that this research has
some relevance to PCT, or vice versa. We have been trying to tell you
(with clearly diminishing levels of patience on Tom and my part) that
this is simply not true. You don't seem to agree with us, so, fine. I
think we're pretty explained out.

Tom and I get impatient with your claims about the relevence of Locke
to PCT, not only because we have bad values (but I promise to peek
though Bill Bennett's book so that I can learn the right values to have )
but because we have been through this 1000 times before, with
reviewers, psychologists and even some people in CSG who are sure
that we can and should build "bridges" to those doing work that seems
"close" to PCT. It just doesn't work. PCT is PCT; it directly contradicts
(or differs completely from) every other model of behavior that has
ever been proposed (that we are aware of).

Conflicts between reference signals should be addressed, not ignored.
Otherwise we are wasting resources. I don't think everyone needs to
be addressing the conflicts, but do not begrudge those of us that
attempt it.

But there is no conflict. The articles by Locke that are sitting in front of
me have nothing to do with what I am controlling for; an understanding
of the nature of purposeful behavior through research and modelling.
The only thing in these articles that could be of any use
to PCT is the data and models. There are no models (except for an
incorrect diagram of a control system) and the data is useless because it
is a summary of group performance and is extremely noisy at that.

I feel no conflict with Locke et al; we are clearly not trying to control the
same variables. His research is no more of a disturbance than most of
the other work in conventional psychology. It is completely and utterly
irrelevant. The only disturbance occurs when people (like you) say that
it is relevant. It ain't. You seem to think we (Tom and I) are in conflict
with Locke; that is wrong. What we are saying is that Locke's work is
useless to us -- as useless, it appears, as ours is to him.

Untersely

Rick