# Nothing to lose but inadequacy

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nothing-to-lose-but-inadequacy/7770>\
**Category:** CSG1993\
**Created:** [October 21, 1993, 12:02pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nothing-to-lose-but-inadequacy/7770 "1993-10-21T12:02:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hortideas\_Publishin1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/f6c823/32.png) [@Hortideas\_Publishin1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Hortideas_Publishin1)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 1993, 12:02pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nothing-to-lose-but-inadequacy/7770/1 "1993-10-21T12:02:00Z")

</div>

> From Greg Williams (931021)

> Rick Marken (931020.0930) [on HFers]

> My impression is that they use the word "control" in the same ambiguous  
> way it is used by most behavioral scientists. Sometimes they use it  
> to mean "influence" and sometimes they use it to mean what it really  
> means -- to produce a specified result regardless of prevailing  
> disturbances to that result.

I was attempting to obtain some evidence on when they mean one thing  
and when they mean another. I just thought that you could help me on  
that.

> But who cares what they mean anyway?

Bill Powers, for one (see below).

> If any of those people actually are intrested in  
> understanding control then they'll come to us.

Not if they find you incoherent due to misunderstandings of the meanings  
of terms.

> Tom Bourbon [931020.1457]

> Greg, what do you think of the following idea? You seem to have a clearer  
> grasp than some of the others of us (unnamed here 🙂 ) of similarities  
> between models and terminology in traditional human factors and PCT.

I have my hypothesis about a possible source of difficulties in  
communication between PCTers and HFers, but I don't have much evidence upon  
which to judge the worth of the hypothesis.

> Why  
> don't you do a short article for a mainstream human factors journal. Lay out  
> what you think are the points of agreement, then carefully translate, in  
> both directions, the key terms you think are misunderstood by either side.  
> The article need not be long. It might go a long way toward assuring that  
> the bridge is built and the two halves meet in the middle, or anywhere else  
> for that matter.

I like this idea. But preliminary to translation, I would need to learn  
about the meanings of key words used by HFers, in THEIR terms. I think that  
this could be done efficiently (given that first-person reports from Rick  
"Who Cares?" Marken and you are not forthcoming), by sending questionnaires  
to HFers who (1) appear to be using PCT-type models and (2) have INTERNET  
addresses. I propose that I attempt to identify a number of such individuals  
by perusing the recent HF literature over the next few weeks, and then that  
you and I (and Rick, if he can come to see any merit in this) collaborate on  
generating questionnaires. Since you have free outgoing e-mail (I guess) and  
I don't, you could locate addresses and send the questionnaires. Together,  
we would interpret the results and write a paper as you suggest above. I  
think such a paper might be very helpful for generating interest in PCT  
within the HF community.

> Inadequately yours,

Not any more, since you have proposed an potentially very adequate  
alternative to your first-person report which I earlier found so inadequate.  
Thanks!

> Bill Powers (931020.1215 MDT)

> Greg, I think what you're apparently trying to do is a good thing  
> -- getting the general objections to the Human Factors (HF)  
> approach converted to specific chapters and verses. I, too, would  
> like to see specific quotations from the literature that reveal  
> differences in the concept of control. That would be more  
> valuable than generalizations that aren't accompanied by specific  
> evidence.

> It's not always easy to get evidence in such a form. When you're  
> in the midst of a group of people and are receiving a generally  
> hostile treatment, the reason for the hostility isn't often made  
> crisp and clear.

I hope that you will provide input to the questionnaire-making, if  
Tom accepts my proposal above. It is my belief that we could find a way  
to mute, if not completely eliminate, the hostility, by asking in the  
questionnaires for clarification of the HFers' own notions, rather than  
preaching to them as PCT missionaries. I doubt that we'll be entirely  
successful, but with your aid, maybe we'll make a start on resolving  
some misunderstandings.

> Martin Taylor 931020 19:10

> I have been asked by the editor of the International Journal of Man-Machine  
> Studies to guest edit an issue devoted to PCT. He has allowed me control  
> of the form and content of the issue, and to some extent its size. I do  
> not at present know what the issue will contain, or when it will appear  
> (but see below).  
> ...  
> I have already invited contributions from a few potential authors, and  
> will invite more. This note is a blanket invitation for anyone who thinks  
> that they or someone they know might appropriately contribute a  
> paper. What I would like is a BRIEF (1 page max) proposal for a paper,  
> suggesting what the paper might contribute to the issue, and indicating  
> something of the content. I'm not looking for abstracts, and it is  
> not necessary that the proposer be the author. You can propose that  
> someone else should be invited to contribute a paper.

> An invitation to contribute is not a guarantee of publication. Completed  
> papers will be reviewed as usual.

> If you ever want to submit an uninvited paper to IJMMS, you can submit it  
> to the editor in the ordinary way. If he thinks it might be appropriate  
> for this issue, I'm sure he will pass it along. But for now, I would  
> prefer to see short proposals on the basis of which I can issue invitations,  
> rather than full papers.

> Timing: I do not know when the issue will be put together, but I am  
> currently targeting the end of 1994. I hope that authors will be able  
> to circulate drafts of their papers before the 1994 Durango meeting,  
> and that some editorial modification can be done collegially during the  
> meeting, to help make a unified issue.

Sounds great, Martin.

Tom, want to give it a try? I suppose that if we submitted a paper along  
the lines I propose above, you could still submit a longer paper, as well.  
Martin, would you want to publish only one paper from a given author in  
your issue? If so, and if Tom wants to submit a paper on a topic other than  
the HF-PCT meaning problems, I would suggest that we try to get the latter  
published elsewhere.

As ever,

Greg

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tom\_BOURBON3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/85e7bf/32.png) [@Tom\_BOURBON3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Tom_BOURBON3)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 1993, 3:47pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nothing-to-lose-but-inadequacy/7770/2 "1993-10-19T15:47:41Z")

</div>

Tom Bourbon [931021.1003]

> > From Greg Williams (931021)

. . .

> > Tom Bourbon [931020.1457]
> 
> > Greg, what do you think of the following idea? You seem to have a clearer  
> > grasp than some of the others of us (unnamed here 🙂 ) of similarities  
> > between models and terminology in traditional human factors and PCT.
> 
> I have my hypothesis about a possible source of difficulties in  
> communication between PCTers and HFers, but I don't have much evidence upon  
> which to judge the worth of the hypothesis.
> 
> > Why  
> > don't you do a short article for a mainstream human factors journal. Lay out  
> > what you think are the points of agreement, then carefully translate, in  
> > both directions, the key terms you think are misunderstood by either side.  
> > The article need not be long. It might go a long way toward assuring that  
> > the bridge is built and the two halves meet in the middle, or anywhere else  
> > for that matter.
> 
> I like this idea. But preliminary to translation, I would need to learn  
> about the meanings of key words used by HFers, in THEIR terms. I think that  
> this could be done efficiently (given that first-person reports from Rick  
> "Who Cares?" Marken and you are not forthcoming), by sending questionnaires  
> to HFers who (1) appear to be using PCT-type models and (2) have INTERNET  
> addresses. I propose that I attempt to identify a number of such individuals  
> by perusing the recent HF literature over the next few weeks, and then that  
> you and I (and Rick, if he can come to see any merit in this) collaborate on  
> generating questionnaires. Since you have free outgoing e-mail (I guess) and  
> I don't, you could locate addresses and send the questionnaires. Together,  
> we would interpret the results and write a paper as you suggest above. I  
> think such a paper might be very helpful for generating interest in PCT  
> within the HF community.

Nice idea. Nice approach. I will be happy to assist.

> > Inadequately yours,
> 
> Not any more, since you have proposed an potentially very adequate  
> alternative to your first-person report which I earlier found so inadequate.  
> Thanks!

Then am I at least marginally adequately yours?

Tom

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tom\_BOURBON3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/85e7bf/32.png) [@Tom\_BOURBON3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Tom_BOURBON3)\
**Post date:** [October 19, 1993, 7:01pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/nothing-to-lose-but-inadequacy/7770/3 "1993-10-19T19:01:50Z")

</div>

Tom Bourbon [931021.1345]

Some additional thoughts about Greg's idea of a questionnaire sent to  
selected people in mainstream human factors (anyone with suggestions for  
this possible survey, please let us kow):

> > From Greg Williams (931021)

> > Tom Bourbon [931020.1457]

> > Why  
> > don't you do a short article for a mainstream human factors journal. Lay out  
> > what you think are the points of agreement, then carefully translate, in  
> > both directions, the key terms you think are misunderstood by either side.  
> > The article need not be long. It might go a long way toward assuring that  
> > the bridge is built and the two halves meet in the middle, or anywhere else  
> > for that matter.
> 
> I like this idea. But preliminary to translation, I would need to learn  
> about the meanings of key words used by HFers, in THEIR terms. I think that  
> this could be done efficiently (given that first-person reports from Rick  
> "Who Cares?" Marken and you are not forthcoming), by sending questionnaires  
> to HFers who (1) appear to be using PCT-type models and (2) have INTERNET  
> addresses. I propose that I attempt to identify a number of such individuals  
> by perusing the recent HF literature over the next few weeks, and then that  
> you and I (and Rick, if he can come to see any merit in this) collaborate on  
> generating questionnaires. Since you have free outgoing e-mail (I guess) and  
> I don't, you could locate addresses and send the questionnaires. Together,  
> we would interpret the results and write a paper as you suggest above. I  
> think such a paper might be very helpful for generating interest in PCT  
> within the HF community.

Rather than (or in addition to) asking for definitions of key words, we  
might include simple diagrams of putative control models (some traditional,  
some from PCT) and ask direct questions about whether variable X is  
"controlled" (yes, no, other - explain); or what will happen to signal Y if  
function, signal or variable Z changes by Q times; or can the gain in this  
system exceed 1.0 (explain in 25 wors or less). Those are the kinds of  
test questions included in Bill's DEMO programs. I found them to be  
excellent for assessing the degree to which students (both graduate  
and undergraduate) had mastered the ideas of PCT. Scoring their answers to  
those questions should produce results less ambiguous that our personal  
interpretations of the definitions and descriptions they give for various  
key words.

Later,

Tom