[From Rick Marken (930427.0900)]
Chuck, Avery and Isaac -- thanks for asking for a copy of the
rejected paper. I will send an e-mail version of the paper to
each of you. The only thing missing from this version of the
paper is the figures, which are really not essential; you have
probably seen them in other contexts anyway. Besides, if I'm
lucky I'll be able to get the thing published in Closed Loop.
Chuck Tucker (930426) --
Since, everyone is interested
in control (in the ordinary sense) then maybe they would publish your
paper as a better way to do it. [Your problem will be hiding this from
Bill]
As I mentioned in the post, I think Greg Williams has already
proposed this as a good way to attract the attention of behavioral
scientists who might otherwise see PCT as little more that a
masturbatory exercise in applied solipcism. I don't think there is
anything wrong with this approach -- I wish some people who do
operant research, for example, would set up some PCT experiments.
I think we could show them how to control animal outputs far more
precisely than they can do this now. Indeed, looking for increased
precision of IV-DV relationships is one way to do the test for
controlled variables. An example of this is given in the graph
on p. 55 of "Mind Readings" (I'm going to sell another one of those
books if it kills me). The x axis of the graph is the DV (subject's
output) and the y axis is the IV (disturbance). The curvilinear
relationship between IV and DV can be predicted perfectly once you
know that the subject is controlling the area of the object on the
screen.
By the way, I didn't mean to give the impression that there is anything
wrong with the fact that behavioral scientists want to control. We ALL
want to control -- it's our nature to do this (if you buy PCT). In most
cases, the controlling done by behavioral scientists is quite benign;
these scientists are not always trying to bend people to their will.
In many aeras of behavioral science the desire to control shows up as
nothing more sinister than the desire to see a relationship between
variables. Look at cognitive psychologists for example; none of them
would claim to have any interest in controlling behavior -- and they
don't. But they do want to control their perception of relationships
like those between target types and search times or between character-
istics of a problem space and the number of trials to solution. PCT
researchers are also trying to control their perceptions, of course.
We are trying to control our perceptions of the correspondance between
model and subject behavior; between our description of the controlled
variable and what the subject is actually controlling. PCT is just
suggesting that behavioral science researchers should try controlling
different variables -- IF their goal is tounderstand HOW the objects
of their study actually work. PCT provides the ability to control at
a higher level -- it is not the ability to control people better; it
is the ability to control our understanding of how people are able
to control at all.
Marcos Rodrigues (930427.1155 BST)--
I'm afraid that the impregnated S-R model
in the life sciences will last for quite a while.
I'm afraid you're right. There is probably enough "entertainment"
value in the IV-DV approach to keep it going for quite some time.
I think that all we PCTers can do is keep trying to show the
benefits of a "subject centered" approach to understanding living
systems. I think that robotics is one area where the practical
benefits of PCT modelling will eventually become evident. After
all, you can argue about theory all you want but if the theory
actually produces a better mousetrap, who's going to argue (other
than the mice)? I think robotics would take off like crazy if some
of the talented people working in that area started architecting
their beasts as hierarchical perceptual control systems.
Best
Rick