PCT and psychology

[William_T_Powers2]

[from Mary Powers 9409.22]

Jeff Vancouver 940921

Well, for heaven's sake, what provoked that outburst?

You _could_ argue that we are as guilty as Locke for deliberate
ignorance, etc., but you would be arguing from false premises. It
is because we _have_ read Locke and Lord and Carver and so on
that we feel entitled to comment on their failure to grasp
control theory.

You _could_ argue that developing a model is different from
developing applications. It's more fundamental, for one thing.
How can you develop good applications if your model is a) absent
or b) wrong?

Apparently the constructiveness or destructiveness of what we
have to say is debatable (since you are debating it). Is knocking
down a theory that doesn't work really a bad thing to do? We have
wasted a _lot_ of time looking at what these researchers do, and
we are unimpressed - not ignorant.

Finally, although PCTers spend a vast amount of time on this net
teaching and explaining, that is not the sole function of csg-l.
This extremely small corner of cyberspace was established so that
PCTers, who are scattered rather thinly over the planet, could
talk to each other about control theory. Listeners, questioners,
students, and critics are welcome, BUT, the basic premise of csg-
l is that PCT is a viable, productive theory of the organization
of living systems. In some quarters, that qualifies it,
operationally, as a reasonable approximation of "the truth"
(whatever that is). Since most of psychology has ignored control
theory, and the rest misunderstands it, we do indeed have a
"corner" on it. But it's not because we _want_ to have a monopoly
of it, which is what a corner means - it's more like a sack of
kittens. We can't seem to give it away. Meanwhile, this is the
only place where PCTers can talk freely to one another and
express their feelings about what, in the context of control
theory, looks like bad psychology and worse science. And if we
are so terribly, terribly thoughtless as to say, on the net we
established, for our own use, that our theory is better than
anything else going in psychology, then what exactly is your
problem with that?

Mary P.

[William_T_Powers2]

[From Bill Powers (941011.1550 MDT)]

Chuck Tucker (941011) --

Your suggestions about looking into old experiments and applying PCT to
them are great for those who really want to do this. Either you will
find some hidden information there, or will see what is the matter with
them. Worth doing in any case, if you have the time.

You put your finger on a basic problem:

The problem is that they did not collect the data on a person by person
basis and thus it is impossible to find out the results of THE TEST.

Actually, they must have collected the data on a person by person basis
-- how else do you collect data? As Mary pointed out, however, the real
question is whether they kept the data, and would make them available.
Also, when you look at such experiments from the PCT standpoint, my
experience is that there are always kinds of data you wish had been
recorded but were not -- they weren't relevant to what the experimenter
thought the problem was.

You can't just go to the literature and re-analyze an experiment using
PCT. You would really have to do the experiment all over again. This is
certain necessary if the only data reported are standard deviations and
correlations and such worked-over results. We need to see the moment-by-
moment raw data for each individual subject. Otherwise we're just
accepting someone else's interpretations. For example, when someone
comes up with a measure of "short-term memory," the real question isn't
the measure, it's calling it a measure of short-term memory. How do we
know that's what it's measuring? Maybe if we looked at the data, we'd
call the same effect "integral output lag." A lot of psychological
theory is asserted in the names given to variables.

Rick Marken (941011.1100) says a lot of the same things. It's not as if
all the data are sitting there just waiting for a PCT analyst to come
along and reinterpret them. Applying PCT to the same experiments is
going to be a LOT of work for someone.

···

-----------------------
Paul George (a week ago by now) --

Your commentary on the Intro to CSG-L was extremely useful. You have
seen how an outsider would see it, and clearly the whole thing needs to
be redone in the light of your observations. We're all so used to
control theory that we assume knowledge that isn't there. Thanks a lot
for the great effort; I think we will end up with a much better Intro
because of it. I'm already thinking about how to do it -- you might as
well do the same thing.

Also, felicitations on your new son! Ain't those little guys nice?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all,

Bill P.