[From Rick Marken (950717.1400)]
Me --
I am somewhat surprised that there were no comments on my "Behavior and
Control" post (950714.1220).
Bill Powers (950717.1135 MDT) --
Since we all agree with your analysis, there's not a lot to comment on.
But I was hoping that Bruce Abbott might be able to explain why that demo has
less impact on conventional psychologists than (I think) it should. Bruce
helped explain why the E. coli demo would have no impact on reinforcement
theorists (it's because they will assume that some non-random consequences
are guiding behavior even if they can't specify which consequences are not
random). I would appreciate the same kind of explanation of why the mind
reading demo has no impact on conventional psychological researchers.
I think that right now we're trying to work out a strategy for approaching
the EAB community in terms they understand.
That's a good goal. But I think the problem might be that the EAB community
understands PCT (at least, unconsciously) just fine. So they know that PCT
rules out an axiom of EAB -- that behavior is controlled by its
consequences. If you want to approach the EAB community in terms they
understand, it might help if you could couch PCT in terms like "control by
consequences", "consequences guide behavior" and the like. This may involve
taking some liberties with language but it worked for Skinner so maybe it can
work for us;-)
Me --
the [mind reading] demo seems (to me) to show quite clearly why it is
inappropriate to deal with behavior as it is dealt with in conventional
psychology.
Bill P. --
This is true, but only after one has accepted the idea that consequences
are controlled rather than controlling.
I'm not sure I agree. The point of the demo is not, as you say:
to demonstrate that "behavior" (action) does not correlate with consequences
when arbitrary disturbances are present.
The point is to show that it is impossible to tell, by just looking at the
consequences of action, which consequences are intended and which are not.
As the subject in this demo you can tell which number is under control. You
can also see that the other numbers are moving as a side-effect of
your control actions. Futhermore, you can tell that these side-effects are
indistinguishable from the effect you intend to produce. So, when the
computer determines which number is under control, you are (hopefully)
surprised that the computer can "read your mind".
The point of the demo is also made (perhaps even more strongly) when you are
observing the subject's behavior. As the observer you see five numbers
moving around the screen, any one of which could be under control by the
subject. You can tell that movement of all numbers is a result of the
subject's actions but you cannot tell which number is being moved on
purpose. So, again, you are surprised that the computer can determine the
number that is actually under control.
My goal in developing this demo was to help people understand PCT
experientially -- without equations or working models. When you are the
subject in the demo, you can experience your own behavior as the private,
subjective phenomenon that it is; only you know which number you are moving
around the screen. You can also see how The Test (performed by the computer)
can make your subjective behavior public; the computer "reads your mind" by
determining the variable you are (privately) controlling.
When you are the observer in this demo you can experience the private,
subjective nature of the behavior of another person; you can watch what
another person (the subject) is doing (moving the numbers on the screen) and
realize that you have no idea what the person is really doing (controlling).
The demo exposes the position you are in (according to PCT) when you are
watching the behavior of another person; it lets you directly experience why
PCT is inconsistent with the conventional approach to behavior. The demo lets
you experience the superficiality of the conventional view of behavior and it
let's you experience PCT's ability to penetrate this surperficiality
(and find out what you are really doing) through the use of The Test.
I try to develop demos that will help people understand the nature of control
in the same way that physics demos help people understand the nature of
gravity. I know that one demo doesn't take a person all the way from
ignorance (of PCT) to understanding; there are many intermediate steps. But I
would hope that my demos could provide some useful experiences that can help
clarify the difference between PCT and conventional views of behavior.
So, given that goal, are there any comments about the mind reading demo and
how it might be made a more effective experiential tool for understanding the
difference between PCT and conventional psychology?
Best
Rick