[From Rick Marken (950104.1445)]
Peter Burke (950104)--
Obviously, we need to measure the disturbances to the system as well as the
perceptions, reference signals and outputs. Without measures of all the
important factors, no methodology will yield an accurate picture.
In conventional research methodology the IV IS a disturbance because it
fits the PCT definition of a disturbance: it is a variable that can be
indepedently manipulated by the experimenter and that (probably) contributes
to some perception controlled the subject. Perceptions and reference signals
are not variables that can be measured in the typical PCT experiment; they
are part of the PCT model used to explain the behavior of the variables that
are measured.
Bruce Abbott (950104.1215 EST) --
I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, so I'll just comment briefly on
a couple of subjects.
I hope we're not creating any disturbances for you;-)
Rick: please tell me how you plan to study the properties of human memory
using the Test. Your results should allow you to explain, for example, how
it is that you are able to recognize a familiar face.
I presume that this means that you don't want to discuss the problems of
using conventional IV-DV methodology to study living control systems?
Ah well. I'll try to answer your not obviously germain question as best as I
can. "The Test" and variations thereof are used to study control phenomena.
Memory is probably a control phenomenon with a hefty dose of control of
"imagination" (see B:CP for technical definition). I would probably have to
use some variant of "The Test" to study the controlling that goes on when one
recognizes a face as familair or not. I can't tell you exactly how I would
use "The Test" to study this phenomenon until I had a pretty good model of
the phenomenon to be tested. Of course, if memoory is not a control
phenomenon then use of "The Test" would, indeed, be unnecessary.
What I am saying is that there are many questions about human and animal
behavior that can be researched quite effectively using other [than PCT]
methods .
This is certainly true; if, for example, you are studying the acceleration
of human bodies as they fall off different height roofs then methods other
than PCT methods can (and should) be used. The problem is that these non-
PCT methods are being used regularly to answer questions to which they are
BOUND to give the WRONG answer. This is not happening by accident; it is
happening because psychologists are being taught that the way to study human
behavior is to manipulate independent variables (under controlled conditions)
and determine their effect on dependent variables. This (as Powers said in
B:CP) is "bread and butter" psychology, sociology, education, economics,
political science, etc. My "Los Tres Bandidios" post shows why, in principle,
the use of IV- DV methods, as psychologists are told to use them, cannot
possibly answer the questions that psycholgists want to answer.
Since I answered your memory question, could you please answer my
(implicit) "Los Tres Bandidios" question: After doing the "Los Tres
Bandidios" demo is there any reason why research psychologists should not
immediately abandon the conventional IV- DV approach to understanding
behavior?
Bill, your comments about the misuse of statistical analysis in psychology
are well taken, but you have made some errors in your analysis of the
probabilities and in their interpretation. You might want to ask Rick, an
expert in such matters, to explain the problems to you. When he's done
that, I'll respond.
Gee. It looked OK to me.
I'm done. Your turn:-)
Tom Bourbon (950104.0950) to Bruce Abbott (950102.1615 EST) --
When you signed on to csg-l, you said you were planning a new edition of
your book on methods -- on all of the right tools. Have you decided to
include anything on PCT? If so, have you decided how you will present the
PCT material, relative to all of the traditional tools? If so, how?
Well, then, there's at least two of us (Tom amd me) who would love to hear
the answer to THAT question.
Best
Rick