From Greg Williams (930329 - 5)
Bill Powers (939329.1415 MST)
... the "IV-DV approach to studying behavior" also includes, as
I've been trying to say recently, deriving statistical measures
of population characteristics, with no commitment to an IV-DV
generative model.
I'm not sure it doesn't. If a population study finds a
correlation between taking aspirin and a decrease in heart
attacks, doesn't this carry the implication that if you take
aspirin, you'll have a decreased risk of a heart attack?
I say no. So do at least some epidemiologists.
It's certainly publicized that way.
Yes, at least by some aspirin advertisers and probably even some
doctors. What does that fact have to do with my point, which was about
behavioral scientists, not aspirin advertisers or doctors (or even
epidemiologists)?
It's hard for me to think of a circumstance in which, once an IV-
DV relationship has been found, the IV isn't then used as a
predictor of the DV. Maybe the prediction is just "yes-no", but
that's a generative model. Not one of your GREAT generative
models, you understand.
I think if we perused the refereed behavioral science literature
together, we'd find a lot of cases where correlations are found
between two population measures, and no generative model for IV-DV
variables of individuals is supposed.
You to Rick:
You are currently just ASSUMING it will, not having tried, I
think, to apply the foundational method of testing for
controlled variables to "hard" cases in the field. Want to join
Bill Powers and try it on me?
You should have said that to me. Are you trying to present
yourself to me as a "hard" case? You're not a hard case.
I seems that any case in the field, where ongoing disturbances cannot
be known by the experimenter, might be "hard" for succeeding with The
Test. At least, that's one thing I conclude from your post on
prediction earlier today.
···
-----
Mary Powers 9303.29
What's going on? You want PCT to explain your behavior when you
yourself don't have access to your own motivational control
structure? If Bill gives you an analysis, correct or incorrect,
you're saying you aren't equipped to confirm or deny. So why are
you asking?
Maybe Bill can convince me that there aren't any problems with the
kind of introspection he wants me to use. Or maybe he will come up
with a different way of attempting to meet my challenge without
relying on my own impressions. I don't think he has given up yet. I'm
waiting to see what happens next. Also, when I first asked, I didn't
know he would need my access to my own motivational control structure.
Shouldn't the Test work even on non-verbal creatures? In that case,
such access would be moot.
-----
Bill Powers (930329.1330 MST)
This is going to make it difficult for you to know whether I've
met the challenge. Well, I did say you are the judge, so maybe
you will win by default.
Maybe it would be better for YOU to be the judge?
It
didn't occur to me at the time I chose the challenge-issuing
behavior as the test object that the control process in existence
just then might disappear immediately and be unrecoverable.
If that happens to be true (I'm not admitting it yet), what
conclusion would you draw about the possibility of understanding
human behavior by ANY means?
It all depends on the dynamics of disappearing and reappearing, I
guess. Having access to the detailed dynamics some way (electrical
probes?) might in principle be able to reconstruct individual
motivations backward in time, if chaos isn't problematic (and it might
not be, if the dynamics were governed by limit cycles). And for
predicting POPULATION behavioral measures, statistical description
might work (predicting "backwards."
-----
You are overlooking the possibility that an output can remain
(at least look) the same while the intended outcome is
changing. My motivations could be changing continuously for not
withdrawing the challenge.
That's a possibility. Is that what's happening?
I don't know.
So what about an explanation for my originally issuing the
challenge?
If that's your condition, I may well admit defeat. Any reaction
to that?
Why do you say you may well admit defeat?
Was (and is) this one of the immediate goals in issuing the
challenge?
Again, I don't know. It sounds reasonable, but how would I
gather any additional evidence beyond (my own) hearsay?
Try trusting your own "hearsay" (I thought that referred to
repeating what someone else said). I don't think you need to look
outside to find out what you want. If you want it, you still want
it. You can imagine what outcome would be satisfying to you, and
know whether it seems OK or if there's something wrong with it.
Why should I trust my own "hearsay"?
That is, did you want to get back an indication of my
acceptance or rejection of it?
It is possible. I'm not sure.
Well, in that case I'm not going to tell you whether I intend to
continue with this challenge. OK with you?
OK.
As ever,
Greg