[From Bill Powers (930623.0700 MDT)]
Yesterday I got a total of 35 posts. If I took an average of 15
minutes to consider each one and reply to those about which I had
something to say, I would have devoted 8 hours and 45 minutes to
the mail. This has been going on for many months, and I'm not the
only one who has been swamped. What is it that's been taking up
so much of our time?
By and large, it's the same thing that has caused PCT to take 40
years to get where it is: arguing with people who have other
points of view to promote. I am coming close to concluding that
this is a waste of time.
Consider the information-theoretic thread. Does it really matter
what information theory has to say about control theory? To those
interested in information theory, obviously it does. Does it
really matter how PCT fits in with various (competing) concepts
in linguistics? How PCT compares with existing sociological
theories? With personality theories? With theories of education?
With cognitive theories? With chaos theory, or optimal control
theories, or action theories? To those whose primary interest is
in promoting those theories, or whose expertise lies in those
areas, it is clearly important to discuss how control theory
relates to, or can be absorbed into, each of those theories. But
is that important to the development of PCT?
In each case the answer is no. The development of PCT rests on
putting it to experimental test, discovering its flaws, and
working out ways to correct the flaws by improving the theory.
Trying to work out its relationship to all the other theories of
behavioral organization that exist is a waste of time, because by
the time PCT has developed enough to deal with the kinds of
problems implied by these other theories, assuming it ever does,
NONE OF THESE OTHER THEORIES WILL EXIST ANY LONGER. By the time
PCT has developed enough to handle the same subject matter, the
subject matter itself will have taken on a completely new
appearance. What will PCT have to say about intelligence, or
aggression, or you name it? Nothing, because those words won't
mean anything any more.
A little light went on in my head this morning. Why, I thought,
are PCTers asked so often what PCT has to say about this fact or
that theory or the other explanation of behavior? Obviously,
because the askers have not worked out any answers for
themselves. They are throwing up a challenge and waiting for
someone else to meet it. In many cases, they are waiting for an
answer to knock down. But why do they need to ask?
Obviously, because they don't understand PCT well enough to
answer the question themselves. But if they don't understand PCT
well enough to answer the question, how are they going to
understand the answer? In fact they generally don't: the next
word they utter following the answer is "But ..." The answer
makes sense within the context of PCT, but not within the context
of whatever other theory they're coming from. So they are left
with the same problem: not understanding PCT.
Of course those who are trying to teach other theories have
exactly the same problem: an information theorist offers an
explanation, and the PCTer replies "But ...". This shows the
futility of trying to use one theory as the medium for
understanding another, particularly when they deal with
orthogonal subject matters (for which expression we may thank
Hans Blom).
In teaching PCT, the object is for the learner to grasp its
principles and structure to the extent that they have been
developed, so that when a question comes up regarding
observations of behavior or other proposals concerning behavior,
the learner can apply PCT to working out an answer -- or, given
enough advancement in the art, so the learner can realize that
there is something wrong with the theory that needs fixing. When
a student is learning how to solve the quadratic equation, the
point is to learn the method of solution and the principles
involved; it's not to deal with every new algebraic expression by
going to the teacher and saying, "I solved the last problem, but
this one is different -- how do you solve this one?" This is not
learning how to solve the quadratic equation; it's avoiding
learning. You learn by trying to apply the principles and the
method, and when you fail, asking about the principles and the
method, not about the answer. The answer has no importance at
all; when you understand the principles and the method, you'll
know when the answer is right.
One of the giveaways concerning the degree of understanding is in
the reaction to PCT "slogans." We say "It's all perception." We
say "Control systems control their own inputs." We say "Control
systems control outcomes, not outputs." To a person who doesn't
understand PCT, these are indeed just slogans; they sound like
the basic dogma of PCT. But to a person who does understand PCT,
these statements are simply succinct summaries of deductions that
rest on a closely-reasoned analysis of the way all control
systems work: they're conclusions, not premises. They're where
you end up, not where you start.
A lot of the verbiage I've churned out on the net has been by way
of offering answers to questions. That's fun; it shows how much I
know, or think I know. But what good does it do anyone who
doesn't understand how I got to the answers? I don't have any
magical tricks or any genie whispering in my ear. All I do is
apply PCT. If I can do that, so can anyone else. There's nothing
secret about it. Or there isn't any secret once you have
assimilated the theory. That's what's so gorgeous about PCT: no
secrets. No arbitrary assumptions "for the sake of the argument."
No appeals to philosophical generalizations. No references to 200
authorities you must have read before you can understand the
answer (although reading an algebra book would help).
As a way of opening a conversation, answering a question about
some aspect of behavior isn't a bad move. As soon as the "But..."
occurs, however, the next thing to do isn't to try to convince
the listener of the truth of the answer. It's to ask "Do you want
to know how I got to that answer?" If the reply is "no" the
conversation is finished: all the person wants is for his
conclusion to win. If we want to teach PCT, what we have to teach
is PCT. It's tempting, I can tell you, to play guru and just come
up with a series of mysteriously penetrating answers. But what's
rewarding is to see a person (like a lot of people I could name
in the CSG), START to ask a question, and then say "Oh, never
mind, I see."
I am definitely not saying that PCT should go its own way and
ignore everyone else's ideas. That's not the point. The point is
that we shouldn't keep on pitting the conclusions of PCT against
other people's conclusions. Well, _I_ shouldn't. All that does is
prolong the agony. If PCT has something to say about another
person's field of expertise, the best person to work that out is
the other person.
I've found myself pretending to be a linguist, a mathematician, a
neurologist, a biochemist, a sociologist, a psychotherapist, and
God knows what else, when all I really am is a control theorist
saying how I would think about problems in those areas. If I were
talking to a biochemist-control-theorist, or a sociologist-
control-theorist, and so on, I would be talking about PCT, not
about the other person's discipline. And the other person would
be saying all the same things I would say and a lot more, because
that person would know his own field AND PCT.
All of our problems come from trying to talk with people who
don't understand PCT. The solution is to get them to understand
PCT. The rest will take care of itself.
···
--------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all,
Bill P.