Mistress PCT, axiom

CSGnet Archive CSG1994
1

[From Rick Marken (940213.2010)]

Mary Powers (940213) to Jim Dundon (940206)

Questions on information.

You arrived on the net in the midst of a (to me) exceptionally
tedious and prolonged argument about information theory and
control theory.... I think Bill has tried to move
the discussion up a level to look _at_ the mind sets rather than
operating _from_ them, but so far it hasn't worked.

I have tried before to describe the mind set from which I'm operating.
I think it's basically the same one from which Martin is operating:
the mind set of gaining acceptance for and contibuting to the
development of PCT. Most of the people contributing to CSGNet
probably come from the same mind set ; the same reference for a
system level perception. I think my conflict with Martin about
information theory has to do with subgoals that we see as necessary
for controlling that perception. The conflict between information
theory and PCT is a result of a difference over whether it is important,
in principle, to seek "continuity with the past" as a way of "gaining
acceptance for and contibuting ot the development of PCT".

I have come to believe that the principle of maintaining continuity
with past developments in psychology (for example) is not only
unimportant to the goal of developing and promulgating PCT, it can
actively interfere with that goal. My experience has been that well-
intentioned efforts to find a place for PCT in some existing theory of
behavior, or to find a place for some existing theory of behavior in
PCT, always requires contradicting some basic tenet of PCT. The
result is a compete mangling of PCT. This is what happened to Carver
and Scheier, Locke, Hyland and many others who found (or still find)
PCT attractive; these people were unwilling to give up their marriages
to other theories. The result was that PCT became a mistress (and a rather
abused one) rather than a wife. I guess I believe that it is as impossible to
have an honest relationship with two theories at the same time as it is to
have an honest, intimate relationship with two women at the same time --
even if you THINK that they can get along. Eventually, you are forced to
choose.

One of PCT's most faithless suitors has been William Glasser, who has a
new book out called "The Control Theory Manager". It is very short and
I plan to post a review of it shortly. I recommend this book as an excellent
example of what happens to people who want to keep PCT as a mistress
while maintaining their marriage to another theory (in Glasser's case,
"reality therapy"). I think we all know who gets the shaft when the day
of reckoning arrives.

"List all axioms". Living systems control.

Excellent.

Best

Rick

2

<Martin Taylor 940215 20:45>

Rick Marken (940213.2010)

I have tried before to describe the mind set from which I'm operating.
I think it's basically the same one from which Martin is operating:
the mind set of gaining acceptance for and contibuting to the
development of PCT.

Agreed.

The conflict between information
theory and PCT is a result of a difference over whether it is important,
in principle, to seek "continuity with the past" as a way of "gaining
acceptance for and contibuting ot the development of PCT".

Not agreed. Not agreed that there is ANY conflict between information
theory and PCT. Not agreed that "continuity with the past" has any
bearing on the case. I don't give a hoot about continuity with the past,
in regard to scientific theories. What works is what works, whether it
was thought of yesterday or 2000 years ago (like the works of our finest
economist, J. H. Christ).

I keep coming back with discussions of information theory, and with
arguments, predictions, and whatever, because I have found that IT helps
me greatly in understanding the nature of hierarchic control--what the
hierarchy does, what happens in learning (whether by reorganization or
Hebbian), and a host of other stuff you haven't let me get to because you
are stuck on this notion that information = reconstruction of the
disturbance. There's very little point in trying to discuss the more
advanced ideas before the most simple are understood, so I don't try.

But the main motivation for keeping on with it is that I continue to
believe what once annoyed you and Bill, that one cannot really understand
hierarchic control at any deep level without coming to terms with its
informational implications. Understand at a deep level does NOT mean
the ability to program models that mimic behaviour. That ability is a
proof of concept, that one's ideas are plausible, and very valuable as
such. But it does not represent a deep understanding, in my view.

I think we have about exhausted the current cycle of discussion. If not,
please just recycle the postings from the end of March and beginning of
April 1993, as my contributions there say almost all that I had intended
to say now. I realized that when I went back to look at the history of
claims and counterclaims. So now, when the sleep-loss study eases up, I
intend to address the issue from a quite different direction, which might
not raise your hackles quite so badly. That could be in May or June. But
it might be earlier, if things go well.

Mary says Bill keeps trying to go up a level to address the mind-set. I
don't see this. I see a lack of understanding of what information theory
is based on and how it can be usefully applied. I try to address this
lack sometimes, by writing little tutorials on this and that aspect. I
think this helps. I hope it does. (At least you can see that I'm not
using terms like "negentropy" in the quasi-fantastical way Hal does).

Back to the sleep study.

Martin