PCT in context

CSGnet Archive CSG2010
1

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.03.19.1734 EDT)]

Let me say the outset that this is doubtless a futile effort. Nevertheless, like the Light Brigade, I charge on.

PCT is a robust model of behavior in the domains to which it has been applied. This domain has been restricted. To date it is a little premature to call PCT the Great White Hope of behavioral science. Much of what today is called cognitive science and cognitive neuroscience lies outside the domain explored by PCT. That may not always be true but it is true now. Far from belittling the efforts of PCT research, I welcome them. I would like to seem them reach further. I would like to see a greater openness on the part of PCT researchers to studies of behavior made in by those working outside the PCT framework. None of this is likely to happen for reasons I cannot even begin to fathom. Wonders, however, never cease. I notice that Rick Marken has gone so far as to allow that the claim that all psychological studies involve closed-loop processes is an assumption rather than a Revealed Truth.

Freud talked about the narcissism of small differences. The application of this sobriquet to PCT is left as an exercise for the reader.

So if you happen to be wondering why I am out here in the darkness amidst the weeping and moaning and gnashing of teeth, now you know.

Bruce

p.s. I wonder what Richard Kennaway makes of MOL. I suspect he dismisses it for its lack of rigor. Don't feel alone, MOLers, there is plenty of room out here in the darkness.

···

from my perspective the importance of PCT lies in its focus on what I call intentional agents. Intentional agents always act to achieve goals. The actions of an intentional agent only make sense in light of its goals. Negative feedback explains how many, if not all, of those goals can be realized. (This qualification is apparently tantamount to saying that the bread and wine are "only" symbolic rather than the actual blood and flesh of Jesus. Why are Christians so cannibalistic? Might have something to do with Jahweh's fondness for the smell of burning flesh. To each his own.)

2

[From Richard Kennaway (2010.03.19.2208 GMT)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.03.19.1734 EDT)]
p.s. I wonder what Richard Kennaway makes of MOL. I suspect he dismisses it for its lack of rigor. Don't feel alone, MOLers, there is plenty of room out here in the darkness.

Since you ask, I've no personal experience in this area, but the theory underlying MOL -- i.e. PCT -- seems reasonable, MOL practitioners claim results for it, and the theory suggests that to the extent that the other talking therapies work, they do so because they are provoking reorganisation in the client, which MOL directly aims to do by leading the client's awareness up the levels of the control hierarchy.

I see nothing to dismiss here. But if someone does statistical studies, I will, I hope, take r=0.6 as lightly here as anywhere else.

···

--
Richard Kennaway, jrk@cmp.uea.ac.uk, Richard Kennaway
School of Computing Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.

3

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.03.19.1827 EDT)]

[From Richard Kennaway (2010.03.19.2208 GMT)]

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.03.19.1734 EDT)]
p.s. I wonder what Richard Kennaway makes of MOL. I suspect he dismisses it for its lack of rigor. Don’t feel alone, MOLers, there is plenty of room out here in the darkness.

Since you ask, I’ve no personal experience in this area, but the theory underlying MOL – i.e. PCT – seems reasonable, MOL practitioners claim results for it, and the theory suggests that to the extent that the other talking therapies work, they do so because they are provoking reorganisation in the client, which MOL directly aims to do by leading the client’s awareness up the levels of the control hierarchy.

I see nothing to dismiss here. But if someone does statistical studies, I will, I hope, take r=0.6 as lightly here as anywhere else.

I am not one to look a gift horse in the mouth. I do hope you will get a chance to look at The Spirit Level. The authors display all their data and it sources. They acknowledge the limitations of their approach and allow the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

Bruce

4

[From Rick Marken (2010.03.19.1745)]

Bruce Gregory (2010.03.19.1734 EDT)--

I would like to see a greater openness on the part of PCT researchers to studies
of behavior made in by those working outside the PCT framework.

Does that mean that we should not be critical of these studies?

None of this is likely to happen for reasons I cannot even begin to fathom.

I have always been "open" to studies of behavior made outside the PCT
framework (which means 99.999% of all the research done in the
behavioral sciences). I rarely find anything of particular in these
studies (though I sometimes do; the ball catching research, for
example) because 1) the results are almost always based on group
averages 2) the results are always quite noisy and 3) there is usually
no attempt to fit a closed loop model to the results.

Wonders, however, never cease. I notice that Rick Marken has gone so far as
to allow that the claim that all psychological studies involve closed-loop
processes is an assumption rather than a Revealed Truth.

Actually, it's a hypothesis, not an assumption. If you read the
"Dancer and the Dance" paper in _More Mind Readings_, my book for
which you wrote an enthusiastic back cover blurb (thanks again), you
will see that I recommend testing for controlled variables in all
behavioral experiments, not just to discover controlled variable but,
first and foremost, to determine whether the system under study _is_
in fact closed loop. If the test reveals that the relationship between
IV and DV in the experiment is open loop (because there is no
controlled variable between them) then you are justified in analyzing
the results in terms of an open loop model.

So if you happen to be wondering why I am out here in the darkness amidst the
weeping and moaning and gnashing of teeth, now you know.

Yes, this post explains a lot. Thanks.

By the way, based on what you say in this post, I think a good way for
you to confirm my cluelessness (if you need any more confirmation;
probably not) would for you to read my latest paper: Marken, R. S.
(2009) You Say You Had a Revolution: Methodological Foundations of
Closed-Loop Psychology, Review of General Psychology,13, 137-145. It's
about the non-revolutionary nature of the cognitive revolution that
gave us cognitive science and cognitive neuroscience. If you like I
can send you a pdf of it.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com