New Demo, Responsible Thinking

CSGnet Archive CSG1997
1

[From Rick Marken (970126.1030)]

I have put another demo up on my Web site:

http://www.leonardo.net/Marken/demos.html

It's called "S-R vs Control". It's the one that Gary Cziko
likes. I hope I can get some more comments and suggestions
about this and the rest of the demos.

I think it's good to keep in touch with the kids _and_ with
the phenomenon that PCT is about -- control. My web site
makes it cheaper to do the latter than the former;-)

Bill Powers (970125.0400 MST)

So if you know all this [the social contingencies], and still
end up in jail, that's your responsibility.

I know that's hard to take.

It's not hard for me to take at all. I happen to think drug laws are
ridiculous beyond belief. But I have no sympathy for people who
are punished for knowingly breaking these laws by taking or selling
drugs.

If you want to change the unreasonable laws, then that's what you
should be working at instead of running red lights.

Right on!!

The concept of empowerment doesn't mean gaining the power to
flout social conventions and laws indiscriminately. It means
learning what you can do to change the social system without
becoming its victim.

I agree. This statement expresses what may be behind my rather
poorly concealed suspicions about RTP. I think RTP succeeds at
dealing with the problems created when people "flout social conventions
and laws indiscriminately". But all this "floting" is happening in the
context of a social system that (as your dad
shows) makes it virually impossible for many people (particularly
people like the kids in the RTP program) to control in ways
(such as by working at a company) that are deemed socially
acceptable by other people that buy into the system.

I think it's great that RTP improves social relations in venues
where a large proportion of the "inmates" have been delt the worst
possible hand you can get in the Bridge game of life. I guess I'm
just more interested in figuring out ways to deal out the hands more
fairly (in a way that is acceptable to all the players -- including the
card sharks;-)). You really don't need the RTP program at at a place
like Brentwood Elementary school, do you, where all the kids
can comfortably control all the variables they want (though RTP
could be usefully applied at one of the the residences on Rockingham
Drive in Brentwood;-))

I don't have Caroline's address handy -- Rick, could you forward
a copy of this post to her? Maybe through Tom?

I don't have her address handy, either. But I bet she is monitoring
CSGNet. Is that true Caroline?

Best

Rick

2

[From Bill Powers (970126.1820 MST)]

Rick Marken (970126.1030)--]

I have put another demo up on my Web site:

I like it. Same response (correlation 0.98+ for me), different stimulus
(correlation 0.26 for me). Neat.

The other side would be to do "same stimulus, different response." Record
the behavior of the controlled variable for 15 sec., then play it back for
the second 15 sec.. Here you'll get a relatively high correlation between
the two response curves if the person is fooled and keeps on "tracking", but
it will be a lot lower than it would be if there were tracking all the way.

Of course people don't realize how much lower a correlation of 0.9 is than a
correlation of 0.99, so maybe both experiments should also show the RMS
differences between the first and second curves.

In the experiment where you disturb the moving squares and try to guess
which one is under control, it's not obvious that the cursor is having the
same influence on all three squares. I don't see any simple way to show
this. Maybe you could use the mouse button to suspend control, with all
three squares then being affected equally, just to show that the mouse does
"push on" all the squares.

Actually this is one main point of the demo, which is that if you don't
think in terms of control, you're likely just to assume that there's no
connection between the mouse and the square that isn't affected by it. If
the mouse position is the manipulated independent variable, then the only
relations of any interest will be with the squares that are NOT under
control. There will be two "DVs" that correlate highly with the mouse
movement "IVs", and one that doesn't. The one that doesn't is clearly of no
interest in an IV-DV analysis, although it's the only one under control.

Is it possible to draw a rubber-band vector? If so, you could show the
influence of the mouse on each square with a line drawn from each square's
current position, with a length and direction equal to the magnitude and
direction of the disturbance. But that might slow the display even more.

I do wish it were possible to at least double the display rate. Any idea why
it's so slow, anyone?

How about "Click on "run" to start the experiment; click again to turn on
one control system; click a third time to reveal which square was controlled."

Best,

Bill P.