Misconceptions and Boss Reality

CSGnet Archive CSG1993
1

********** FROM CHUCK TUCKER 930512 **********

      MISCONCEPTIONS (mainly RM 930509.1000)

      I was thinking the other day that it would be useful to have
      an "end-of-the semester" summary of "what has been learned on
      the net". Rick's list (although for another purpose) seems
      to be an excellent outline for such a summary. It would be
      useful to have each of these "misconceptions" discussed in
      terms of (1) how they developed, (2) possible "causes" for
      its development, (3) a statement of the "correct conception"
      and, (4) evidence from PCT research that indicates the faults
      with the misconception and the accuracy of the PCT conception.
      (or some variant of the above list). I believe that a great
      deal of repetition in on the list due to the misconceptions
      and it might be useful to include them in the introduction to
      CSG-L to reduce such repetition and increase understanding.

      ON UNDERSTANDING

      How do you know that someone understands PCT? What do you
      have to do to get another to understanding PCT that is
      different from convincing that other that PCT is a useful
      model? I am wondering if one relieves himself of the
      responsibility of influencing another more by using the
      word "understanding" as contrasted with "convincing" another.

      BOSS REALITY (WTP 9930511.1400 [sic])

      It was with my knowledge of PCT and my experience with you over
      the years that I predicted (by private posts) that you and Rick
      would commet on "boss reality" exactly as you and he did. But
      someone with an S-R view of behavior would have predicted the
      same reply by you and Rick. I was not playing games or trying to
      trick you (or Rick) but I did hope that you would present your
      view of "boss reality" again. You did and it was quite clear to
      me: I understand it. Unfortunately, it spells trouble for PCT
      in that it does not differentiate it EPISTEMOLOGICALLY from all
      the conventional "theories" (including S-R or S-O-R) in the so-_
      called "social and behavioral science." IT IS A REALIST (or NEO-
      REALIST) THEORY IN IS EPISTEMOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS.

      I would claim that is one of the reasons that reviewers do not see
      appreciable differences between PCT and S-R; there is none epistem-
      ologically. It uses that same standards of validity; correspondence
      with reality. [Yes, this is a correspondence theory of truth that
      is being used in PCT] Even though the critique of aggregate
      statistics made by PCT is one of its great achievements it still
      uses statistics (just higher ones) to prove that its model is
      correct (of course, you know that most researchers are wary of high
      r's in that they believe that either autocorrelation or cheating
      was involved). And since it uses tracking studies and rubber bands
      (my student moan when I take out a rubber band) as its data NOT
      real people responding to real stimuli an any way that can be
      applied to real life THEN it just a silly exercise and not worth
      the trouble. That is just one of the problems, folks.

      As you all know I find PCT and HPCT a useful addition to the
      theory that I have used for a number of years which goes under
      the labels of Symbolic Interaction (Blumer), Instrumentalism
      (Dewey), Social Behaviorism (Mead) and Social Construction
      (Von Foester) but my theory comes out of the Romantic view
      NOT the Enlightenment view that is used by PCT and S-R. It
      seems like PCT but it says that since there is no way that
      a human organism can know reality then it is silly to even
      posit one and even sillier (and contradictory and impossible)
      to search for one or use it as a standard to decide if your model
      is correct. So, I use a Pragmatic Theory of Truth (Mead's article
      by this title) which says your model is adequate when it solves a
      problem by generating self-directions that can be used to solve
      the problem. Since problems are know by disturbances or interences
      of purposes or goals then PCT works quite well but without the
      necessity of positing a boss reality. It turns out that this theory
      works quite well with PCT but is far more efficient and does not
      get you into the endless arguments that we find on this net almost
      every day or two.

      Please don't read the above as a rejection of PCT but rather as a
      recognition that PCT does not have to use any notion of a boss
      reality and still work quite well and still be revolutionary. In
      fact, what makes it revolutionary is its rejection of a boss reality.

      Regards, Chuck

2

From Tom Bourbon (930512.1125)

Chuck Tucker (12 May 1993 09:38:53)

I think your ideas aout Boss Reality are quite different from those Bill
Powers, Rick Markan, and I (and probably a number of others) have been
using. None of us see PCT as refuting or rejecting The Boss. I don't say
that in an attempt to bully you or to invoke authority -- those approaches
are not likely to work on Chuck "The Tank" Tucker! Just remarking that
you have probably opened up what will become an interesting thread for the
near future. For now, I want to follow up on the following ideas from
your post.
..

     BOSS REALITY (WTP 9930511.1400 [sic])

     It was with my knowledge of PCT and my experience with you over
     the years that I predicted (by private posts) that you and Rick
     would commet on "boss reality" exactly as you and he did. But
     someone with an S-R view of behavior would have predicted the
     same reply by you and Rick. I was not playing games or trying to
     trick you (or Rick) but I did hope that you would present your
     view of "boss reality" again. You did and it was quite clear to
     me: I understand it. Unfortunately, it spells trouble for PCT
     in that it does not differentiate it EPISTEMOLOGICALLY from all
     the conventional "theories" (including S-R or S-O-R) in the so-_
     called "social and behavioral science." IT IS A REALIST (or NEO-
     REALIST) THEORY IN IS EPISTEMOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS.

     I would claim that is one of the reasons that reviewers do not see
     appreciable differences between PCT and S-R; there is none epistem-
     ologically. It uses that same standards of validity; correspondence
     with reality. [Yes, this is a correspondence theory of truth that
     is being used in PCT] Even though the critique of aggregate
     statistics made by PCT is one of its great achievements it still
     uses statistics (just higher ones) to prove that its model is
     correct ...

        ... So, I use a Pragmatic Theory of Truth (Mead's article

     by this title) which says your model is adequate when it solves a
     problem by generating self-directions that can be used to solve
     the problem. ...

When I read serious contemporary radical behaviorists, I see them flatly
rejecting any correspondence criterion for knowledge. They lump such
criteria with "structural" explanations and prononuce them all anathema and
excomminicate. As the accepted truth criterion they advance -- guess what
-- your criterion -- pragmatics. They call it "successful working" and they
say that a behaviorist works successfully when she or he "predicts and
controls behavior." Prediction and control, and the greatest of these is
control.

Almost without exception, radical behavioral and behavior analytical writers
characterize correspondence theories as trivial and as wasteful of resources
and time. And as most correspondence theories in behavioral,
cognitive and life science go, the behaviorists are right on target.
When they are offerred as general models and theories of behavior,
descriptive correspondence theories are all of the bad things behaviorists
say they are. But most radical behaviorists never met a working generative
structural model. For that breed of cat, correspondence makes a good
criterion.

Contrary to the beliefs of radical behaviorists (and a few
other varieties of behavioral scientists), correspondence and successful
working are not mutually exclusive. That is the case I advance in my still-
in-preparation manuscript on "controlling behavior." In brief, I claim that
the PCT model (structural; relies on correspondence) lays bare the hows and
whys of successful working -- the prediction and control (via disturbance)
of behavior. (I include some examples of prediction ala PCT -- the +.997
that some of the faint of heart among us want to abandon.) And I raise many
of the caveats concerning "control of others" that have been aired on this
net. The manuscript is planned as a sacrificial lamb, offerred up to the
reviewers and editors of Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.
(I enjoy watching piranahs go into a good feeding fenzy.)
Until later,
  Tom Bourbon