[From Dag Forssell (960101 1115)]
As you may or may not note in the header, I have abandoned America
On Line.
My new E-mail address: forssell@scvnet.com
With this address, I enjoy full Internet access. I look forward to
learning how to research subjects of interest and broaden my
horizons in 1996.
[Rick Marken (951231.1900)]
Once you understand the principle of control of perception you
can see that all behavior -- simple behavior, like controlling
the position of a cursor, and complex behavior, like
controlling your the position of a preposition -- is control of
perception.
. . .
. . The compensatory tracking task shows that, when people
control, it is a perceptual representation of some physical
state of affairs that is controlled. This is not simple; it's
very _deep_.
. . . .
. . . This means that _all_ conventional models of behavior are
rejected by the results of the simple compensatory tracking
experiment that have already been reported in the literature
(eg. Powers, 1978; Marken, 1992; Bourbon & Powers, 1993).
Discourse on CSGnet will undoubtedly continue to revolve around
these issues in 1996. The basic insight of PCT is indeed deep and
stands in contrast to most conventional theoretical scientific
wisdom.
While re-reading my own article "Are all sciences created equal"
recently, it occurred to me that I had missed a point that ought to
be made about Reinforcement Theory. Bill Powers deals with this
point in the following essay, offered here as classic food for
thought, quite in line with Rick's New Year's comments:
···
---------------------------------------------------------
THINGS I'D LIKE TO SAY IF THEY WOULDN'T THINK I'M A NUT
Or, Overgeneralizations that aren't THAT far over.
William T. Powers, 1989
When you study human beings, remember that you are a human
being. You can't do anything that they can't do. You think with
a human brain, experience with human senses, act on the world
as human beings experience a world. Whatever you say about them
is true about you. Whatever you can do, they can do.
Understanding human nature means more than having a large
vocabulary. You experience the world at many levels, some lower
than symbols and some higher. If you try to understand by using
nothing but words, you'll miss most of the picture. What most
people call "intellectual" is really just "verbal." If you
always use the same terms to refer to the same idea, it's not
an idea but a verbal pattern. Most important words don't mean
much. Words that "everybody knows" don't mean anything. Words
that are used to describe psychological phenomena are almost
all informal laymen's terms that have negative scientific
meaning: they imply the existence of things that don't exist,
like "intelligence" or "aggressiveness" or "altruism." Or
"conditioning" or "habits" or "aptitudes" or -- see the
literature.
Knowledge isn't what you can remember or name: it's what you
can work out from scratch any time you need to, from basic
principles. The behavioral sciences don't have any basic
principles. None, that is, that would survive scientific
testing.
Statistical findings are worse than useless. They give the
illusion of knowledge. Even when they're true for a population,
they're false when applied to any given person. To rely on
statistics as a way of understanding how people work is to take
up superstition in the name of science. It's to formalize
prejudice.
When you propose an explanation of human behavior, you ought to
make sure that the explanation works in its own terms: what
exactly does it predict? Most explanations in the behavioral
sciences consist of describing a phenomenon, saying "because,"
and then describing it again in slightly different words.
Perceptual control theory may have a long way to go as a theory
of human nature, but it's the only theory that deals with
individuals and accepts them as autonomous, thinking, aware
entities. You might say that thinking about them that way is
what makes control theory possible to understand. Using control
theory, you don't have to ignore individuals who deviate from
the average. Using control theory you can propose explanations
that you can test. Using control theory you can learn that
scientific understanding isn't any different from ordinary
understanding. A scientist would judge that a cooling device
used in regions of very low ambient temperatures would be
inefficient, and you can't sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo,
either.
But never forget that science bought Phlogiston for 150 years,
and stimulus-response theory --so far-- for 350 years. We're
still crawling our way out of one system of faith into the
next, still looking for dry land and solid ground. Is control
theory the new faith? Not as long as you can forget everything
you've memorized and reason it out for yourself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The point to be made is that Reinforcement Theory is not an
explanation. It is a Dormitive Principle, or, as I labeled it in
my article, a Descriptive Non-Explanation. As Bill says above:
Most explanations in the behavioral sciences consist of
describing a phenomenon, saying "because," and then describing
it again in slightly different words.
Compare this with Chris Cherpas statement, captured in the
following exchange:
----------------------------------------
[Bill Powers (951206.1500 MST)]
Chris Cherpas (951206.0851 PT) --
Please understand that "reinforcement" is _defined_ as what
increases the probability of behavior. Period.
I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt. This way of
defining reinforcement means that you can have no basis at all
for predicting whether something will be reinforcing. You have
to wait for the results of the experiment, and THEN you can
decide. This pretty much takes the wind out of the sails of
reinforcement theory as an explanation of behavior, doesn't it?
------------------------------------------
Reinforcement IS Probability of behavior. Probability of behavior
IS Reinforcement.
Reinforcement is nothing more than a dormitive principle, a
Descriptive non-explanation for the phenomenon of Probability of
behavior, which in turn is merely a mental construct, devoid of
explanatory power. "Probability of behavior" does not suggest any
causal relationship or structure in an organism, except as imagined
in the minds of believers. Probability of behavior and
Reinforcement DO NOT EXIST in nature, they are interpretations
suggested by verbal stories circulated among believers.
We see that Reinforcement fits nicely in Bill's essay among the
items in the list of things that don't exist.
This is not much to base a "science" upon.
-------------------------------------------
I look forward to the continued application of the PCT perspective
during 1996. Newcomers will no doubt continue to present dormitive
principles, descriptive non-explanations, which the newcomer has
accepted and decided to believe in as if they do in fact have
explanatory value, and ask PCTers to provide a PCT interpretation
and alternative to the existing non-explanation. Newcomers will
continue to be upset when PCTers are unimpressed by the non-
explanation the newcomer believes in, has learned to cherish, and
wants to be respected.
Lurkers will enjoy the spectacle and will SOLIDIFY AND BROADEN
THEIR UNDERSTANDING AND PERSONAL APPLICATION OF PCT as the debate
continues.
I look forward to continuing my efforts to introduce and teach PCT
in 1996. I feel as if my own perspective has mellowed in 1995. I
have stepped back a bit, followed the debates and reflected on the
nature of PCT, the obstacles presented by existing unsupportable
but still firmly held beliefs when one attempts to learn or explain
PCT, and the value of a correct, complete understanding of PCT.
PCT offers profound wisdom. The world will be a better place when
it becomes common, accepted knowledge. I can hardly wait.
Happy New Year, Dag