[From Rick Marken (940920.1130)]
Mary Powers (940919) --
I will probably not hear back from him [Locke], because in his last to me he
called me presumptuous (for suggesting that he should learn something about
control theory before criticizing it). He said
I do not plan to read the 1973 book you cite [BCP], partly,
because based on what you have said in your letter, it will
be more of the same, and partly because the title itself is
invalid. People do not behave to control perceptions but to
achieve values, ie, to live. In short, I believe that your
premises are _fundamentally_ mistaken. Given this, there is
little point haggling over details.
As my daughter would say, it looks like you've been "dis- ed", Mary, my dear.
I suppose it has never occurred to Locke that the "mistaken-ness" of your
premises (and the correctness of his) could be tested by experimentation.
it should be noted that when Locke talks about control theory it is not
just from ignorance - it is from deliberate ignorance.
Beautifully put.
I forget who this Locke fellow is. It seems to me that there is this bunch of
people, including Carver, Scheier, Locke, Karoly, etc who are fighting over
the virtues of variants of a "control theory" model of human nature. But
since they all seem to be clueless about 1) the nature of behavior 2) the
nature of control 3)the nature of control theory 4) the nature of modelling
and 5) the nature of science itself, it's hard for me to remember who is
ostensibly "for" and who is "against" control theory. To me, it looks like a
confederacy of dunces.
Best
Rick