Looking for PCT in all the wrong places

[From Rick Marken (931029.0800)]

Greg Williams (931029), waxing blindly optimistic, says:

It appears, perhaps, that (1) some nonPCTers
recognize the importance of specifying outcomes, rather than outputs, and
(2) they are looking for models to accomplish this.

I think you should defer judgment on (1) until we get clarification
from Wickens. It seems like a bit of a stretch, however, to read
Wickens definition of "motor schema" as a "set of specifications of HOW
TO REACH the desired goal" as indicating that he "recognizes the
importance of specifying outcomes". To me (and, I would bet, most
other native english speaking PCTers), it sounds precisely like a
statement that "recognizes the importance" of specifying the MEANS
which will achieve these outcomes (that's what the words "how to reach"
mean). As for (2), the statement may be true but PCT is definitely
NOT one of the models they are looking for. I have had at least three
papers rejected by reviewers who were unquestionably motor controllers
of the Wickens type (I woudn't be surprised if Wickens were one of
them). All of these papers were eventually published, but it was like
pulling teeth. The reaction to my papers (which showed precisely how
PCT "solves" the "control of outcome" problem that you believe Wickens
is so keen on solving) is not what I would have expected from people
who are "looking for models to accomplish this [specifying outcomes]".

Before coming upon the Wickens piece, I was convinced (by certain PCTers)
that the nonPCT idea of motor programs/schemata was monolithic -- ALWAYS
"specification of outputs."

And Wickens' piece is enough to convince you that this is not true?
Boy, and I thought I was liberal.

Of course, since the authors of those quotes are still around,
...it is possible to ask them to flesh out their ideas so that
they are clearer. I intend to do that BEFORE I rush
in where Rick Marken doesn't fear to tread.

Please, flesh away.

Of course, if you are right about Wickens' understanding (that it is
outcomes, and not the means to achieve them, that is specified in
behavior), then it's kind of surprising that 1) he didn't include at
least some mention of PCT in his textbook 2) neither he, nor his
cohorts, have done anything like testing for controlled variables
and 3) he abruptly cut off his dialog with the CSGNet before it even
got started. Not the kind of "behaviors" I would expect from people
controlling for understanding how people control.

Greg, I really appreciate your efforts to build bridges between PCT
and conventional psychology. You should sell tickets; it's better
than a Charlie Chaplin film. Maybe we could call it "Reconciling Times".
Do you roller skate?

Best

Rick

[From Oded Maler (931029) Old continent]

* [Rick Marken (931029.0800)]:

* I think you should defer judgment on (1) until we get clarification
* from Wickens. It seems like a bit of a stretch, however, to read
* Wickens definition of "motor schema" as a "set of specifications of HOW
* TO REACH the desired goal" as indicating that he "recognizes the
* importance of specifying outcomes". To me (and, I would bet, most
* other native english speaking PCTers), it sounds precisely like a
* statement that "recognizes the importance" of specifying the MEANS
* which will achieve these outcomes (that's what the words "how to reach"
* mean).

I think (not being a native English speaking PCTer, though) that when
a higher level system sends reference signals to lower ones, it
specifies the desired outcome for the lower-level system, but it
specifies at the same time the abstract means to achieve its own
outcome. Of course, you will say, those are automatic results of
controling a for high-level goal, but since we do not know yet exactly
how sequences of actions are controlled for (and this is why
motor-schema are for) you can be more liberal than you actually are.

--Oded

ยทยทยท

--

Oded Maler, VERIMAG, Miniparc ZIRST, 38330 Montbonnot, France
Phone: 76909635 Fax: 76413620 e-mail: Oded.Maler@imag.fr