[Martin Taylor 941209 10:45]
Rick Marken (941208.2200)
Well, I'm disappointed, but I can't say I am surprised that Rick no longer
wants to publish a paper in a widely read journal, but prefers to fulminate
over a semi-private mailing list. I kind of thought that he had moved
in that direction, after promising what seemed likely to be a very pertinent
paper.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try publishing
the best examples of PCT research in psychology journals; they provide
a nice archive. But I don't think we can count on people learning PCT
from what we publish. Many people will read an article or book on
PCT, like what they THINK it's about and then assume that they have
learned PCT. Some of these people actually go off and publish research
based on "Powers' control theory"; the result almost never has
anything to do with PCT; it's just warmed over S-R theory with a few
new words (reference signal, feeback) thrown in for effect.
Sometimes, yes, they do. I've had similar problems in getting people
to understand LP Theory correctly. People go off and use it in ways
that bewilder me as to how they could think they are talking of the
same thing. But these are reachable people, in many cases. They have
at least accepted SOMETHING of the principle, and may be open to a
better understanding, given the opportunity. Sometimes, I'm sure,
people get quite a good understanding from a well written paper. But
you are right that we can't count on it. Can you count on people
that read CSG-L getting a good correct understanding of PCT in the
same amount of time it takes them to read a paper? If I am to believe
you, I haven't achieved a good understanding in 3 years of reasonably
robust discussion on CSG-L! But then, I don't believe you, so that's OK.
Rick, even though you are correct in saying that I haven't published a
refereed PCT paper, I am providing the opportunity for those whom you think
are less heretical than I to do so. If you don't want to participate, that's
your business. I think that there is an opportunity for you to do some
good for PCT that you don't do through the medium of CSG-L. You said
you would write about PCT in human factors--things you have not been
able actually to do at work, but think should be done (if I interpreted
you aright). Why don't you talk about that stuff even on the net, if
you don't want to write about it for public and general consumption?
It would be PCT in action, where the results could benefit many people.
PCT is about the control of perceptions. What perceptions do you want to
control? That PCT can actually be used in the real world (as is clearly
possible, from the results obtained by Ed Ford and others)? Or that the
correct and pure PCT vision is transmitted to a small group of acolytes
who can then talk about it and simulate simple situations in computers?
Incidentally, in my keynote talk in Brussels to the workshop on "Visualizing
non-visual data," I concentrated precisely on what perceptions the user
wanted to control and therefore what aspects of the non-visual data should
be accessible, putting Powers up front as the guide. Maybe it wasn't
refereed PCT publication, but it got a public response from one member of
the audience, congratulating me on seeing the importance of Powers' work.
This person has been using what he sees as Powers' PCT for over a decade,
in designing architectural environments. He thinks it is very effective
in that area (which is, after all, human factors design).
There are people out there who are reachable, and some who have been
reached. It is NOT true that
Despite all this publication, PCT continues to be ignored.
This is a perception you struggle to maintain. That it might not be so
is a disturbance to you, and to work to reduce the degree to which PCT is
ignored seems to be counter to your reference signals. Why this is, I
don't know, but your attitude over and over again strikes me as remarkably
like the convert who is so unsure of his new religion that he has to
crush without thought any deviation of word from the way it is written
in the sourcebook. I cite as an example a passage from (Rick Marken
(941206.0920)) that surprised me in my quick scan of the last two
months of postings (when this was written, I had been effectively absent
from CSG-L for some 6 weeks):
But, as Martin Taylor now knows, these rules are
just stating relationships between perception and output -- and there is no
information in perception about the disturbance(s) acting on the perception
nor is there any information about the effect that the output is or will
actually have on the perception to be controlled.
There are several statements here, one gratuitously personal, and all false.
We demonstrated months ago, and Marken even accepted, that there IS measurable
information in perception about the disturbance effect (NOT, as I have
always acknowledged, about the disturbance SOURCE). Similarly for
the output effects. But Marken acts the role of fundamentalist absolutist,
and dictates that if there is not complete information, then there is no
information.
To return to my point, why is it now both a sore point that PCT papers
have a hard time getting published, and a bad thing to submit a possibly
valuable paper to a reputable journal that is likely to publish it?
Rick, I hope you will submit your paper as originally proposed. Who
knows, it might produce one convert out there in the wider world.
See you later.
Martin