[From Chris Cherpas (951128.1051 PT)]
[re: > Bill Powers (951128.0805 MST)]
cc:
Thank you for this post.
BP:
Our problem is not that EABers don't know what "control" really means;
it means to them what it means. The problem is that they're missing a
_concept_, the one to which we refer in PCT by using the word "control."
They don't recognize the _phenomenon_ to which our usage of the term
refers. So all arguments in which the word control is used are at cross-
purposes: they argue as if it means "cause" or "affect" or "influence"
or "determine," whereas we argue as if it means selecting a state for
some perceptual variable and creating the actions needed to bring it to
and maintain it in that state despite disturbances tending to alter it
away from that state.
cc:
Agreed. However, feedback functions for schedules of reinforcement
provide one avenue of shared understanding the PCT definition of
control.
BP:
It would really be nice to have a word of our very own which means only
and exactly "selecting a state for some perceptual variable and creating
the actions needed to bring it to and maintain it in that state despite
disturbances tending to alter it away from that state." Apparently,
people will simply not let us have the use of the word control for this
meaning, even though they have plenty of other words that mean exactly
what they mean when they say "control", and don't really need this extra
word. I think they're being very stubborn and selfish about this. What
they're doing is forcing us to invent a jargon term, so that when we use
it, they will not (we hope) automatically hear "influence", "determine",
and so forth and act as if that is what we said. Unfortunately, if we do
use a special term they won't understand what we're talking about,
because they lack the concept to which the term points. They will just
translate it right back into the terms for which they do have meanings:
affect, influence, determine, and so forth.
cc:
Keep the term "control" -- especially since it comes from CONTROL theory.
When behaviorists use the term, they might as well say "y is a function
of x" instead of "x controls y." The term control is not as intrinsic
to EAB as it is to PCT. For EAB the critical form is still "is function of."
The "solution" is really just to give an obligatory rap on how PCT defines
"control," and that other people define it differently whenever addressing
other audiences (see Skinner's book _Verbal Behavior_ to learn more).
BP:
This problem is even worse than that. Suppose we show an EABer a demo in
which this X phenomenon is going on, and a block diagram showing exactly
how it works, and a prediction that predicts exactly what will happen
with a new disturbance. This should supply the missing concept, the
missing meaning, so that when we say "X" they will think of the
situation in the demo that they have just experienced. Unfortunately,
that is not what will happen. They will simply apply the explanation
that they assume applies to all behaviors, and see happening only what
they have already recognized as behavioral phenomena. They will see
discriminative stimuli and reinforcers and responses, and they will
weave these terms into sentences that have the grammatical form of an
explanation, with "because" inserted in all the right places.
cc:
True. PCTers do the same thing with their sacred perceptions and terms.
This is the nature of verbal behavior. When there's a book on language
from a PCT perspective, you'll be able to explain why/how this happens,
right?
BP:
We can't make people wipe their brains clean and start all over.
cc:
Nor is it required. If you want to convince EABers of PCT, go to them
directly. Submit an article to JEAB. Show them the precise, quantitative
predictions which PCT makes for an experiment that's well known within EAB,
run the experiment and show how convincing PCT is. Got a problem with that?
BP:
Maybe we should start up that contest
again, although I've hated every suggestion for a new word, including
all of my own.
cc:
Again, "control" seems perfect for PCT. Just address the given audience
appropriately. Clear translations, for example, between PCT and EAB terms,
and/or highlighting points of divergent definitions should go a long way.
Best regards,
cc