[From Rick Marken (980204.2210)]
Dan Miller (980204.1645)
I think that there is some benefit to non-PCT research (as in IV-DV
research). Such research can tell us something about the world,
though certainly nothing immaculate.
The only problem with non-PCT research is that it tells us nothing
about controlled variables.
For example, there exists a statistical relationship between
amount of reading (IV) and political progressivism (DV)
(r = 0.62 and it has been replicated)... So, how do we make
sense of this intriguing finding?
If you want to make sense of it I'm sure you'll find a way. PCT
doesn't exist to explain this kind of "finding".
A little engineering can go a long way, but it is ONLY a metaphor,
right?
No. Control theory is a model, not a metaphor. We are not saying
that the nervous system is _like_ a hierarchy of input control
systems; we are saying that it _is_ a hierarchy of neurally
implemented input control systems. We are also asking people
to design experiments that put this models to the test; the
model makes very precise predictions so that it can be very
precisely rejected (if organisms don't behave exactly as predited
by the model).
Many who are drawn to this list are interested in understanding
human behavior. A few of us are interested in social interaction.
It's not always easy to do the test in such circumstances.
Have you tried? It's really not that hard.
It's not always clear how it is done in your controlled situations.
For example, can your experiments and demonstrations be done
without prior instruction (that damned social stuff, again)?
Sure. But you might have to wait quite some time until someone
stumbles onto the idea of controlling the particular aspect of
the display that the computer is measuring.
Is there a need to inform people what they are going to be
perceiving, and what they want to perceive? This is a very
troubling question is it not?
People can (and often will) transform words into references for
perceptions. I find this interesting, not troubling. Don't you?
I've read your work. (Have you read mine?) I'm not convinced.
All I can do is make my work available to people who might be
interested; if they like it, that's great; if not (far more
frequent) then c'est la vie. I like it; that's good enough for
me.
Perhaps all the bluster I read in this forum is anxiety in
anticipation of being found lacking.
Can you think of a way to Test that?
There is that word "anticipations" again - another problem area,
I think.
I don't think so. People do anticipate, predict and plan. They
just don't do it as part of the process of control. In PCT,
anticipation, prediction and planning are control of _imagined_
perceptions; we anticipate, predict and plan by producing,
in imagination, the perceptions that we think we will experience
in the future. But when we start trying to deal with or produce
the perceptions we anticipated, predicted or planned we are
doing the "ordinary" process of controlling what we are currently
experiencing; we are controlling our perceptions.
Bruce Abbott (980204.2000 EST) --
Think, Rick. How would the relationship between s and o change
if for every value of i, the PIF returned zero?
I have no idea what you are talking about or getting at. All we
observe in a psychophysical experiment is the relationship between
s (disturbance) and o (response). This relationship tells you
nothing about the perceptual function or any other function
in the organism under study.
Read my lips, er, words: THE BEHAVIORAL ILLUSION OCCURS IN
PSYCHOPHYSICAL EXPERIMENTS, JUST AS IN THE DEMOS. My argument
is not that the behavioral illusion fails to apply to psychophysical
experiments, but that the information yielded in such experiments
nevertheless does tell you something about the person's perceptual
input function. Put _that_ in your snipe and poke it!
What you have said above is equivalent to "The behavioral illusion
does occur in psychophysical experiments; but my argument is that
the behavioral illusion does not occur in psychophysical experiments".
This is the same argument you used in your review of my "Dancer..."
paper. What you said in that review was essentially "You have shown
that the behavioral illusion does occur in conventional psychology
experiments but you have failed to show that you cannot get useful
information about the organism from these experiments". Again,
you are saying that the behavioral illusion does occur in
conventional psychology experiments but that it doesn't.
So I give. I defer to your truly Talmudic reasoning skills.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/