Misc. Topics

[Marken_Richard_S1]

[From Rick Marken (930506.0900)]

Greg Williams (930505 - 2)--

It might be that Anastasio was wanting to see some "hard"
(neurophysiological) data in support of HPCT, rather than PCT.

I just recieved Tom Bourbon's brilliant reply to your post. It ends
with a line that perfectly describes the Catch-22 that I have had
to deal with since I first started working on PCT:

Tom Bourbon (930506.0854)--

Anyone, neurophysiologists included, who demands that the work
already be done before they become involved will not begin to
examine and test the PCT model.

Amen. It is easy to see this happening on the net too, where we hear
from many people who already "know" what PCT can and can't do.
Of course, since they already know it they never bother testing it.

CHUCK TUCKER (930505) --

(note that
Gary's work was used to critically attack Rick's paper that
started this most recent round of "what can be done to get PCT
accepted" posts).

What work of Gary's? Which paper of mine? Who critically attacked it?
Where was I?

So take your favorite area of
research and show how it would look differently from the PCT
perspective.

Sounds great but what if your "favorite area of research" is all
a bunch of statistical generalizations. What if the PCT perspective
on this research is that "there is nothing here to explain"? An
example is the research on "bystander intervention". There have
been all kinds of studies showing "significant effects" of different
variables on "the probability of bystander's helping". So there are
conclusions like "bystander intervention decreases as a function of
the number of other bystanders present". What's PCT supposed to do
with that!?! Especially since the next time they do the study it
might come out completely differently (as it typically does).

It sounds like a great idea to show how PCT explains "your favorite
research area" but the fact of the matter is that, in most cases
(except in the rare cases, like the operant studies Bill P. reanalyzed,
were there was individual subject data and good evidence of a variable
[shock rate] being controlled),the PCT explanation of "your favorite
research area" is that it is a misleading waste of time.

Ken Hacker (930506?) --

Hi, Chuck. Thanks for the forwarded note. I will soon be informing
the net that people trying to keep straight lines on a computer screen
is not social interaction in any meaningful sense.

And the net can hardly wait to be informed.

Avery Andrews (930506.1440 Eastern Oztime) --

nobody really has trouble with the concept of
feedback at lower levels, but it's at the higher levels, where
hierarchical relations become important, that the trouble starts.

Depends on what you mean by lower. It seems like the motor control
people (motor control is usually considered pretty "lower" level
stuff) have plenty of problems with feedback.

It
would help, I think, if we had more models of hierarchical systems
doing interesting things (more work on 14df, less on is-there-info-
in-the-X- signal would have been my reccomendation for March-April).

The "no info in perception" discussion got to the heart of PCT.
While it certainly would be interesting to build realistic 14df systems
(I can do that easily in the spreadsheet -- but it might not be con-
sidered "realistic"; if you send more data I'd be happy to try to
build a vocal tract model) whether it would have been better to spend
the time talking about such a model instead of "information in
perception" -- well, I don't know. I learned a LOT from that discussion.
Besides, Bill P. built a multiple df arm model that didn't make much of
an impression on the motor control establishment. Do you have some
reason to believe that 14 is the magic number of df that will get their
attention?

One can probably build an HPCT model even if they don't understand
that "there is no information in perception" but it is possible that
failure to understand what that little phrase means could lead one
on a fruitless search for the "information" to give their model to
make it work properly -- and they are then headed (apparently
irresistably) towards a dead end.

Greg Williams (930506) --

I'd like to hear more about how your "free will" can be integrated
with PCT models.

I'm with Greg on this. I don't see how "free will" (as I understand
that phrase) fits into PCT. What PCT contributes to our picture of
humans (and all other living systems) is autonomy -- that means (to
me) that the ultimate causes of behavior are inside the system itself.
What these "ultimate causes" cause is behavior in the PCT sense;
behavior as controlled perception. So the ultimate causes of behavior
cause (as best as the system can manage it) certain crucial perceptions
(the "intrinsic variables") to be in genetically determined reference
states. This view of "biological determinism" sounds like the
conventional view which says that genes cause behavior or behavioral
tendencies. But the conventional view looks at behavior as output; the
PCT view sees behavior as the reference state of perceptual inputs.
This makes a big difference because the PCT view makes it easy to
understand why people with exactly the same genetically determined
references for intrinsic variables (like identical twins) could end
up producing behaviors (ie. producing outputs) that are completely
different from one another. The outputs are just the means used to
control perceptions relative to genetically determined references. The
outputs depend on disturbances and it is quite likely that two different
people will encounter slightly different disturbances (and reorganize
to quite different control organizations) and, thus, end up with
potentially very different ways of controlling for the same variables.

Bill P. said it best: autonomy gives us the freedom to be human (ie.
to control intrinsic variables relative to genetically determined
references). To some that may be no freedom at all -- but, I'm afraid,
it's may be all we've got.

Best

Rick

[Kenneth_L_Hacker_Ph]

From Ken Hacker [930506]

I hope the other forwarded messages about Marken were deleted. I find
pseudo-science harder and harder to stomach. But back to reality, in
response to some recent spasms about the social aspects of human behavior
being unimportant, I have this response (and yes I have ready the F *$*$* ing
book!):

I have been reading messages on this net for about two years now.
Everything so far is true by definition in PCT. The theory is deductive and
not yet retroductive. I do not see data in these machinations
leading to theory, but theory being
to replicate itself and reject any inklings of confirmation or disconfirmation.

I requested reprints, but have not received, reprints of Bourbon's
"social" experiments. From what I have read on this net, those studies
are not testing what communication theorsts, and maybe some sociologits,
consider social behaviors as much as testing individual behaviors in somewhat
social contexts. This is called card stacking.
Like head scratching is an individual behavior by nature, so it tracking
lines on a computer screen. Social behaviors are interactive by nature and
include such events as conversation, conflict, meetings, negotiations,
decision-making, and problem-solving. Scratching heads and following lines
on computer screens does not cut it as any valid indication of how much
social influence is involved in individual behavior.
Thus, to test (validly) the influence of control on communication or the
influence of communication on control, one must study controlling systems
in acts of communication where social influence is arguably strong.

Thus, I propose the following test, which can serve as the comparison
experiment I suggested earlier (DV-IV vs. Control experiment data for
same event):

      Let's have tww people work together in a conversation. They will
      read something alone before talking with each other. Then, as
      a dyad, they will be asked to produce a short report (task).
      If we see that these 2 people begin to develop social means of
      shaping and constraining their behaviors and changing their
      reference variables based on INTERACTION, my hypothesis that
      social interaction is more than control will be supported. IF,
      the opposite is true, then it will be falsified and I will conduct
      a larger formal experiment and publish te results indicating that
      old hypothesis was wrong that my new PCT one is correct.
      This is only a suggested design. I am open to changes IF, and
      only if, the ludicrous card stacking ceases.

This, ladies and gentleman, is how science gets done. Like Freudian
ideas, theories which cannot be falsified are not useful.
Endless talk about truth, correctness, and first principles are meaningless
until specific propositions are confirmed or disconfirmed VALIDLY.

Virtually, Ken Hacker

[Tom_BOURBON3]

From Tom Bourbon (930507.0825)

From Ken Hacker [930506]

I hope the other forwarded messages about Marken were deleted. I find
pseudo-science harder and harder to stomach.

I wonder what you meant by that.

But back to reality, in
response to some recent spasms about the social aspects of human behavior
being unimportant, I have this response (and yes I have ready the F *$*$* ing
book!):

And by that. Which net were you on, or whose office were you in at uiuc
when you encountered those spasms? I think assertions that social aspects
of human behavbior are unimportant would not go down well with people on this
net, either.

I have been reading messages on this net for about two years now.
Everything so far is true by definition in PCT. The theory is deductive and
not yet retroductive. I do not see data in these machinations
leading to theory, but theory being
to replicate itself and reject any inklings of confirmation or disconfirmation.

And what ever do you mean by that? I am serious. I do not know what you
mean.

I requested reprints, but have not received, reprints of Bourbon's
"social" experiments.

My apologies for that. There are reasons, but not excuses, as my great aunt
always said. Those "social" (quotes, no less!) experiments are also
available at most well-stocked university libraries. I hear there is one in
your vicinity. (One of the "reasons" was that I lost the file with your
address, while learning to use the mail system here. Could you please send
it again?)

From what I have read on this net, those studies
are not testing what communication theorsts, and maybe some sociologits,
consider social behaviors as much as testing individual behaviors in somewhat
social contexts. This is called card stacking.

So that I might better understand what you are saying, please tell me how
you distinguish between "social contexts" and "individual behaviors in
somewhat social contexts." I do not want to draw the wrong inferences from
what you say.

Like head scratching is an individual behavior by nature, so it tracking
lines on a computer screen. Social behaviors are interactive by nature and
include such events as conversation, conflict, meetings, negotiations,
decision-making, and problem-solving.

I have no problem with that, so long as you remember that what we, as observers,
call their "social behaviors" are known to the social agents as perceptions
and that the agents act to control those perceptions. Social behaviors are
always "individual behaviors in somewhat social contexts."

Scratching heads and following lines
on computer screens does not cut it as any valid indication of how much
social influence is involved in individual behavior.

I certainly agree, and I have never seen anything on this net that would
suggest otherwise. Do you see these claims from other people in your
field? On the other hand, tracking in which two people each affect what the
other does, or in which the pair (or quartet) engages in talking, gesturing,
grunting and the like, prior to achieving the control they desire, provides
hard data concerning what the people communicated and whether it worked.
(Much more clearly that would the test you propose below, I believe.
Perhapsif you were to use it in that test, you would reconsider your ideas
about the worth of collective head scratching as an experimental
procedure. It does produce hard data that irrefutably document the
transitions from uncontrolled events in the environment, to the usually
dramatic increases in the variances of variables people begin to
manipulate and tinker with, to the tell tale signs othat people have
attained control.)

Thus, to test (validly) the influence of control on communication or the
influence of communication on control, one must study controlling systems
in acts of communication where social influence is arguably strong.

That was what I just described, but you seem to dismiss before the fact the
procedure I suggested we might use for documenting the progression of change
effected by comunication.

Thus, I propose the following test, which can serve as the comparison
experiment I suggested earlier (DV-IV vs. Control experiment data for
same event):

     Let's have tww people work together in a conversation. They will
     read something alone before talking with each other. Then, as
     a dyad, they will be asked to produce a short report (task).
     If we see that these 2 people begin to develop social means of
     shaping and constraining their behaviors and changing their
     reference variables based on INTERACTION, ...

OK, but if this is to be a test that produces hard data, we will need to
specify the measures by which we will determine whether a person's
behaviors are being shaped and constrained, and by which we will determine
that they are shaped and constrained, "based on INTERACTION, ..." I offer
interactive tracking as a task well-suited to that role.

     ... my hypothesis that
     social interaction is more than control will be supported. ...

Here, I am afraid I do not follow you. You did not describe how you wiil
test to determine whether communication is achieved by people who act to
control their perceptions -- that the actions we call "communication" are
actions that, for each communicator, are toward the end of controlling
perceptions -- that speaking is control of the perceptions of what we call
speaking --. I can't seem to think of another way to say this that Bill or
Mary Powers have not already tried. It seems to be the little detail on
which your ideas and ours go off into different universes. Perhaps we can
get past that.

     ... IF,
     the opposite is true, then it will be falsified and I will conduct
     a larger formal experiment ...

Is this the one in which you would produce hard data and in which you would
test for the presence or absence of perceptual control as part of
communication and social unteraction?

     ... and publish te results indicating that
     old hypothesis was wrong that my new PCT one is correct.
     This is only a suggested design. I am open to changes IF, and
     only if, the ludicrous card stacking ceases.

I am puzzled, and a bit put off, by your apparent slam of the research
methods used to test PCT models. When we have asked if you read the
literature on that subject, you have characterized the inquiry a red
herring. Yet, you seem to feel comfortable declaring, most vividly, that we
are engaged in ludicrous activities. I hope that you will read the
material, look more carefully at what is and is not said on this net, and
look back at your posts on this subject. You have been reading the net for
two years -- most of us are delighted that ANYONE has enough interest in the
material to stay with it that long. It would be unfortunate were you to react
strongly against something that is not part of the conveersations here --
even more unfortunate were you to judge without having looked closely.

This, ladies and gentleman, is how science gets done. Like Freudian
ideas, theories which cannot be falsified are not useful.

It is best that I let this pass for now.

Endless talk about truth, correctness, and first principles are meaningless
until specific propositions are confirmed or disconfirmed VALIDLY.

And this.
Until later,
  Tom Bourbon