Mirrors and Models, Teaching PCT

CSGnet Archive CSG1997
1

[From Rick Marken (970313.1410 PCT)]

Bruce Gregory (970313.1355 EST) --

most people believe that to see more of yourself in a mirror you should
get further away from the mirror. They are amazed when they actually
try this. I realized that this is a very nice example of an area of
life in which people clearly do _not_ use a model to make predictions.

Beautiful!

Chris Kitzke (031397.0950) --

What would be the advantage of "certification?" And certified for what,
to do what?

I'm of two minds about PCT certification. On the one hand I'm against it
because it seems like it could be used as (or be perceived as being used
as) a means of declaring who is politically correct (PCT-wise) and who
isn't. Certification is what people use to declare who is "right" when the
only basis for determining "rightness" is personal taste.

On the other hand, I think that PCT is a legitimate discipline that requires
the possession of certain skills and abilities. The possesion of these
skills and abiliites can be verified by test and observation. So I think it
is possible to certify that someone "knows PCT" at a particular level just
as it is possible to certify that someone knows calculus or physics at a
particular level.

I guess I incline slightly towards the idea of certification being a good
idea. But I think it would be _very_ important to clearly specify the
criteria for certification and to make sure that these criteria involve
required _understandings_ (such as an understanding of what o = g-1(d)
means) rather than required conclusions (like the conclusion that
"conventional IV-DV research is useless for the study of control").

I'd say Rick Marken is "certifiable,"

You're not the only one;-)

Jeff Vancouver (970313.10:45 EST) --

I and my students do research that I consider is relevant to PCT.
However, what I consider relevant and what, say Rick, considers
relevant are not the same.

You make it sound like the relevance of any particular kind of research to
PCT is just a matter of opinion; your opinion is that your research is
relevant to PCT and my opinion is that it's not. What you fail to state is
the reason _why_ I consider some research relevant and some irrelevant to
PCT. My reason is based on my understanding of how perceptual control
systems work.

I consider most conventional IV-DV research irrelevant to PCT because I
know that it is impossible to determine what variable(s) an organism is
controlling by looking at IV-DV relationships. A very simple, quantitatively
precise demonstration of this fact will be available at my web site very
shortly. That demonstration is the basis for my claim that most conventional
IV-DV research has little to contribute to our understanding of control
(purposeful behavior), which is what PCT is about.

If the research that you consider relevant to PCT is done in the
conventional IV-DV framework then it is probably not relevant to PCT. You
can consider such research as relevant as you like but that won't make it
relevant. If, however, your research has been done in the framework of
Testing for Controlled Variables then it may, indeed, be relevant to PCT.

Best

Rick

2

[From Bill Powers (970313.1654 MST)]

Rick Marken (970313.1410 PCT) --

If the research that you consider relevant to PCT is done in the
conventional IV-DV framework then it is probably not relevant to PCT. You
can consider such research as relevant as you like but that won't make it
relevant. If, however, your research has been done in the framework of
Testing for Controlled Variables then it may, indeed, be relevant to PCT.

I'd like to add another consideration. There are two kind of "research
relevant to PCT." One is research that takes the principles of PCT as givens
and uses them as an interpretative framework for studying other things (for
example, how to organize schools better, how people in crowds behave, what
makes psychotherapy work). The other is research aimed at furthering our
basic understanding of how people (or other organisms) work -- including,
especially, critical tests, refinements, revisions, and improvements of the
basic theory itself.

The distinction, I would guess, is the difference between what people call
applied and basic research. I am always nervous about applied research using
PCT, because PCT is not a finished theory. The applications in which people
want to use it are always, it seems, a couple of miles ahead of where the
theory has been tested. They seem to have more faith in the theory than I
have myself. They want to put the airplane into passenger service before
we're even sure the wings will stay on during taxi tests.

The risk is that large committments will be made to PCT 1997, so large that
there would be great resistance if PCT 2007 turned out to be significantly
different. As soon as people start applying PCT, or I suppose any other
theory, pressures begin to build to keep the theory the same, and NOT to
work on testing, revising, and improving it. The very people who most
enthusiastically endorsed PCT last year could be those who urge us to quit
working on it next year.

I would like to see every application of PCT set up so that it constitutes a
test of the theory, and for every applied researcher to be actively
challenging the theory and looking for ways in which it's not right. At the
very least, this might put the brakes on any tendency to rush ahead and cash
in on the theory before it's as solid as it might be.

Best,

Bill P.

3

[From Bruce Gregory (970314.0930 EST)]

Bill Powers (970313.1654 MST)

The risk is that large committments will be made to PCT 1997, so large that
there would be great resistance if PCT 2007 turned out to be significantly
different. As soon as people start applying PCT, or I suppose any other
theory, pressures begin to build to keep the theory the same, and NOT to
work on testing, revising, and improving it. The very people who most
enthusiastically endorsed PCT last year could be those who urge us to quit
working on it next year.

I would like to see every application of PCT set up so that it constitutes a
test of the theory, and for every applied researcher to be actively
challenging the theory and looking for ways in which it's not right. At the
very least, this might put the brakes on any tendency to rush ahead and cash
in on the theory before it's as solid as it might be.

An appropriate caution, but not necessarily a serious problem.
As long as we keep asking for the evidence that such-and-such a
variable is being controlled by some organism, we should be able to
avoid too much trouble.

The great power of PCT stems from its role as a meta-model. The
details of _how_ living systems control their perceptions are wide
open, the power of basing one's view of the world on the concept
that living systems _do_ control their perceptions is, to my
mind at least, beyond dispute. Like natural selection, once
posited it seems inevitable! (At least to those willing to look
through Galileo's telescope...)

Bruce Gregory

4

[From Bill Powers (970314.0843 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (970314.0930 EST)--

The great power of PCT stems from its role as a meta-model. The
details of _how_ living systems control their perceptions are wide
open, the power of basing one's view of the world on the concept
that living systems _do_ control their perceptions is, to my
mind at least, beyond dispute. Like natural selection, once
posited it seems inevitable! (At least to those willing to look
through Galileo's telescope...)

That's an apt comparison, because if you will recall I have proposed an
alternative to natural selection as having played a major part in evolution.
I think we have to be careful about accepting PCT as a meta-model, which
means only that we can accept it once and for all without further investigation.

To me, the power of PCT lies in the fact that every time we apply it, it is
at risk (if we're using it properly). Any theory will explain anything if
all it's required to do is to make sense of data after the fact. You can say
that adult aberrations are the result of childhood trauma, and thus explain
the aberrations every time. But what if you're shown a childhood trauma
going on, and asked to say what adult aberration will occur as a result, 20
years from now? Ah, that's asking a bit much, isn't it? But what else should
we ask of a theory that's supposed to explain behavior, if we're not to ask
that it predict correctly?

I think that the power of PCT lies in the fact that using it we can predict
quite exactly how people will behave in certain complex-looking tasks. We
can't predict the exact parameters of control in a tracking task because
they vary among individuals, but we can predict the form of the
relationships that will be seen, every time, given that tracking occurs.
And, as Tom Bourbon, Rick Marken, and others have done, we can set up new
situations based on the theory, predict what will happen, and discover (to
our delight and great relief) that it happens exactly as it's supposed to.

Equally powerful, I think, is the idea that by following certain procedures,
we can discover what is and is not controlled, with a reasonable degree of
confidence. Uncertainties in our understanding of what people are doing and
why are at least greatly reduced by the Test.

Unless we want to profess to greater knowledge than we actually have, what
more do we need than a body of solid predictions, and a way of extending the
areas in which we can make them? People like to take new ideas and go
rushing off into the distance with them, hoping to make some lucky discovery
so they can take credit for getting there first (on what grounds, I do not
know). But real progress in science relies on people who simply take the
next possible step, placing the bricks with care and making sure the joints
are sound. Boring, to some. But nothing else works.

Best,

Bill P.

5

[From Bruce Gregory (970314.1530 EST)]

Bill Powers (970314.0843 MST)

That's an apt comparison, because if you will recall I have proposed an
alternative to natural selection as having played a major part in evolution.
I think we have to be careful about accepting PCT as a meta-model, which
means only that we can accept it once and for all without further investigation.

What I meant by a meta-model is what Rick means by PCP. PCP
recognizes the existence of a phenomenon we call control.
Evidence for the existence of this phenomenon and the extension
that living systems control their perceptions seems beyond
dispute. At present PCT is the only way we have to explain and
to predict, even to a limited degree, the operation of living
control systems. It is an interesting theoretical question
whether these phenomenon can be modeled by a system that does
not involve a PCT closed loop. This hypothetical system should
not cause undo concern until someone actually succeeds in
developing it and demonstrating its superiority to PCT in some
domain. Given the conceptual simplicity of PCT and the other
advantages you describe in this post, PCT would still remain a
viable model in the sense that Newtonian physics was not
discarded when general relativity was accepted.

Bruce Gregory

6

[From Bill Powers (970314.1600 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (970314.1530 EST)--

What I meant by a meta-model is what Rick means by PCP. PCP
recognizes the existence of a phenomenon we call control.
Evidence for the existence of this phenomenon and the extension
that living systems control their perceptions seems beyond
dispute.

I think it is beyond dispute in tracking experiments. At least nobody has
sucessfully disputed it yet.

At present PCT is the only way we have to explain and
to predict, even to a limited degree, the operation of living
control systems. It is an interesting theoretical question
whether these phenomenon can be modeled by a system that does
not involve a PCT closed loop. This hypothetical system should
not cause undo concern until someone actually succeeds in
developing it and demonstrating its superiority to PCT in some
domain.

Then why does anybody still maintain any other theoretical position? All
you're doing is expressing your own faith that some day, PCT will be
demonstrated to apply to all levels of organized behavior, including the
ones we haven't studied yet. Here is the problem: if you are convinced that
the truth of your assertion is adequately established, what happens to your
motivation to actually do the work that will establish it? You aren't
experiencing any error, so why should you do anything to correct it? The
more people you persuade to your point of view about PCT, the fewer people
will be left who want to explore it experimentally. In that direction lies
the Cult of the Feedback God.

Given the conceptual simplicity of PCT and the other
advantages you describe in this post, PCT would still remain a
viable model in the sense that Newtonian physics was not
discarded when general relativity was accepted.

Newtonian physics was not discarded, for the reason that it actually works
with great accuracy in all but a few very unusual circumstances. NASA, for
example, does not use relativity in computing spacecraft trajectories --
there's no need. But even so, Newtonian theory undergoes a critical test
every time NASA launches a spacecrart: does it actually go where it was
predicted to go? You can bet that if it didn't, NASA would quickly be
looking for a way to improve on Newton. NASA doesn't give a damn about
Newton, or Einstein. What it gives a damn about is launching the Shuttle so
it stands a least a good chance of linking with Mir.

If you use PCT to make predictions, then every time you use it you are
testing it, whether you mean to or not. If the prediction works, fine, but
if it doesn't, you had better be ready to roll up your sleeves and find out
why it didn't. On the other hand, if you look only at things you have
already observed and use PCT to generate a plausible explanation, you will
always succeed, but what will you have learned about reality? Not a thing.
All you will have demonstrated is the infinite capacity of the human mind to
rationalize any observation to fit any theory, in order to prove that one
was right all along -- a goal unworthy of the enlightened mind.

Come on, oh ye of little faith! Don't you guys get it yet? It doesn't matter
whether you believe in PCT. If you fall into aspostasy, nature will soon set
you right, or else vindicate your fall. You can't lose. So go ahead and
fall; it won't make the slightest difference. If you think it's too risky to
make an actual prediction and let PCT stand or fall on what actually
happens, just as if you didn't believe in it, go ahead and make it anyway!
You can't know the power of PCT until you have stuck your neck out, and
until you've been rescued from disaster by Nature saying, "Gee, you're
lucky: you got it right again -- this time" (all except this little detail
here, and that other one over there).

When you defend any theory by any means other than direct experimental test,
you're really declaring a lack of confidence in it. If you have a theory
that says the sun will rise tomorrow, you don't need to indulge in elaborate
defenses and philosophical or mathematical arguments about it: all you have
to say to any critic is, "All right. Let's just wait until 05:52 tomorrow,
and see what happens." That doesn't take much guts -- unless everyone is is
convinced it won't happen, and you are swayed by their doubts.

Assertions of belief are really defenses against doubts. If you have neither
beliefs nor doubts, there is no need for any defense. That's just good PCT,
isn't it?

Best,

Bill P.

7

i.kurtzer (970314)

b.gregory (???)
(At least to those willing to look
through Galileo's telescope…)

myself:
the comparison betwen the Newtonian revolution and the Powerian/PCT
revolution has not been new in coming, so what little i have to add in the
philosophy and history of science might as well be dated.
with that caveat:
with the Coperican struggle there was A) at least consensus on what the
facts were to be explained and B) an irreliable manner in which to
validate these facts.

remember, B' ) achromatic lenses were nototriously problematic compimented
by no standardization of their production; which would come later with the
advent of the "industrial revolution". A' ) And the facts garnered were
as ancient as civilization itself, at least in the main.
.....
instead, A) there is _no_ consensus on what are the facts; instead we are
presented with 100 years of I-O data. a damn infinity of push-pull..with
humanity as the the surragate circuit, a vessel, between the two..a
convenient lever..?!

which is flatly false even in those rarefied instances of "experimental
design"

B) anyone with a PC can reproduce any of the findings made by Marken,
Powers, Bourbon, etc. (including myself) with similar results.

i hope that those litely taken analogies are appeciated within this
context.

how much more talk before i see a modelling doctoral student..any takers?
slightly pissed
i.

8

[From Bruce Gregory (970315.0600 EST}]

Bill Powers (970314.1600 MST)

When you defend any theory by any means other than direct experimental test,
you're really declaring a lack of confidence in it.

Nature determines the answers we get. Our perspective determines
the questions we ask.

Bruce Gregory