PCT and Meta PCT

CSGnet Archive CSG1997
1

[From Bruce Gregory (971203.1145 EST)]

Bruce Abbott (971203.1100 EST)

>Bruce Gregory (971203.0715 EST) --

>My point, perhaps expressed too elliptically, is that PCT looks
>at the system from the viewpoint of the organism acting as a
>control system with regard to its environment. Bruce Abbott seems to
>prefer the viewpoint of the environment acting on the organism.

It isn't my viewpoint and I've repeatedly said it isn't, but apparently you
do not wish to take my word for it.

But, I _do_ take your word for it. Especially those words
that focus on how some endogenous variable acts on some
organism. Towit

    I agree. What I argued was not that one can learn about a
    particular individual from group results. I argued that group
    results can tell us about variables that act on individuals.

I have attempted to show how phenomena
originally described from an external, environment-centered point of view
and given labels like "reinforcement" or "incentive" can be explained by
control theory. However, by introducing and using these terms in our
discussions, I have apparently given you (the plural "you," since you (Bruce
G.) keep using "we" as if you (Bruce G.) speak for everybody else)

We are _not_ amused...

impression that I see no fundamental differences between PCT and the views
from which the terms arise.

I am not surprised at your reaction, because you were evidently attracted to
PCT at least partly because of your strong negative feelings about the "use"
of reinforcement or incentives as a way of influencing human behavior.

Not at all. In fact I was quite convinced that reinforcement was
the best way to alter human behavior. I was attracted to PCT by
Bill's convincing arguments and by Rick's beautiful experiments.

You
prefer to believe that PCT shows that these procedures do not work, whereas
in reality, PCT shows that these procedures will work, and under what
conditions they will (and will not).

Unfortunately, the conditions under which they work are not the
conditions under which I prefer to work and teach. My loss, no
doubt.

Bruce

2

[From Bruce Abbott (971203.1100 EST)]

Bruce Gregory (971203.0715 EST) --

My point, perhaps expressed too elliptically, is that PCT looks
at the system from the viewpoint of the organism acting as a
control system with regard to its environment. Bruce Abbott seems to
prefer the viewpoint of the environment acting on the organism.

It isn't my viewpoint and I've repeatedly said it isn't, but apparently you
do not wish to take my word for it. I have attempted to show how phenomena
originally described from an external, environment-centered point of view
and given labels like "reinforcement" or "incentive" can be explained by
control theory. However, by introducing and using these terms in our
discussions, I have apparently given you (the plural "you," since you (Bruce
G.) keep using "we" as if you (Bruce G.) speak for everybody else) the
impression that I see no fundamental differences between PCT and the views
from which the terms arise.

I am not surprised at your reaction, because you were evidently attracted to
PCT at least partly because of your strong negative feelings about the "use"
of reinforcement or incentives as a way of influencing human behavior. You
prefer to believe that PCT shows that these procedures do not work, whereas
in reality, PCT shows that these procedures will work, and under what
conditions they will (and will not).

Regards,

Bruce A.