PCT Research (was Behavioral Illusion)

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.29.1525)]
RM: I'm changing the name of this thread once again because I think the focus on the behavioral illusion per se misses the point of its importance. The point of the behavioral illusion -- the reason why Bill brought it up in the 1978 Psych Review paper -- is because it explains why psychologists continue to study the behavior of living organisms as though those organisms were purposeless objects. As Bill puts it in the Psych Review paper, psychologists continue to study N-systems (control systems) as though they were Z-systems (causal systems).Â
RM: The behavioral illusion shows that N-systems will appear to behave like Z systems -- systems whose responses are caused by stimuli -- when the variables they are controlling are ignored. An N-system appears to behave like a Z-system when a stimulus (independent variable) has a statistically significant "effect" on its behavior (dependent variable): this is the behavioral illusion.Â
RM: In terms of the technical terms of the Psych Review paper, Powers shows that, when one is dealing with an N- rather than a Z- system, the relationship between an independent (q.d) and dependent (q.o) variable that appears to reflect a causal connection between q.d and q.d via the organism, f(), actually reflects the inverse of the feedback connection, g(), from q.o to the controlled input, q.i. So psychological researchers are studying the causal connection from q.o to q.i, as inÂ
  q.o = g-1[q.i* - h(q.d)]          (1)
(where q.i* is the reference state of q.i) rather than what they think they are studying; the (non-existent, in N systems) causal connection, via the organism, from q.d to q.o, as inÂ
  q.o = f[h(q.d)]                (2)
RM: Powers says about the comparison of equations 1 and 2 above that it "...reveals a behavioral illusion of such significance that one hesitates to believe it could exist". The reason for the "hesitation" is clear: The "significance" (in the actual English, non-statistical sense) of this behavioral illusion is the implication that, if organisms are, indeed, N- (control) systems, then for the last 70 years (at the time the paper was written, now going on 100 years) scientific psychologists have been studying an illusion. They have been studying an illusory causal connection between independent (q.d) and dependent (q.d) variables when they should have been studying the reason these apparent causal relationships exist; the variables organisms control (q.i). As Bill put it in his Foreword to my book Mind Readings:Experimental Studies of Purpose "..if the phenomenon you see here really works as this model [PCT--RM] shows it to work, then a whole segment of the scientific literature needs to be deposited in the wastebasket." Â Â
RM: So what I would like to do in this thread is first show how the behavioral illusion is involved in some examples of conventional psychological research and, second, try to come up with some ideas for what some PCT based research might look like (some possible research projects for Leeanne?). I did a little of this at the end of my paper "Taking Purpose into Account in Experimental Psychology" which is reprinted as chapter 2 "Doing Research on Purpose"; the relevant discussion is on pp. 49-53.
RM: So let's start with examples of how the behavioral illusion is involved in some examples of conventional research. I can start with one that Bill already analyzed: the shock avoidance experiment. This is an operant conditioning experiment where the independent variable is the seeing of the average interval between shocks (if the rat does nothing) and the dependent variable is the rate of bar pressing (which can prevent the shock). The conventional interpretation of the results is that the average interval between shocks causes (or selects) response rate. The PCT view is that this is an illusion; what is actually happening is that the rats are controlling a perception of the probability of getting shocked, trying to keep that probability at 0.Â
RM: Other ideas are welcome.Â
BestÂ
Rick

···

--
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[rsmarken]

Due to some minor (but potentially confusing) typos I’m re-posting this:

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.29.1525)]

RM: I’m changing the name of this thread once again because I think the focus on the behavioral illusion per se misses the point of its importance. The point of the behavioral illusion – the reason why Bill brought it up in the 1978 Psych Review paper – is because it explains why psychologists continue to study the behavior of living organisms as though those organisms were purposeless objects. As Bill puts it in the Psych Review paper, psychologists continue to study N-systems (control systems) as though they were Z-systems (causal systems).Â

RM: The behavioral illusion shows that N-systems will appear to behave like Z systems – systems whose responses are caused by stimuli – when the variables they are controlling are ignored. An N-system appears to behave like a Z-system when a stimulus (independent variable) has a statistically significant “effect” on its behavior (dependent variable): this is the behavioral illusion.Â

RM: In terms of the technical terms of the Psych Review paper, Powers shows that, when one is dealing with an N- rather than a Z- system, the relationship between an independent (q.d) and dependent (q.o) variable that appears to reflect a causal connection between q.d and q.o via the organism, f(), actually reflects the inverse of the feedback connection, g(), from q.o to the controlled input, q.i. So psychological researchers are studying the causal connection from q.o to q.i, as inÂ

  q.o = g-1[q.i* - h(q.d)]          (1)

(where q.i* is the reference state of q.i) rather than what they think they are studying; the (non-existent, in N systems) causal connection, via the organism, from q.d to q.o, as inÂ

  q.o = f[h(q.d)]                (2)

RM: Powers says about the comparison of equations 1 and 2 above that it “…reveals a behavioral illusion of such significance that one hesitates to believe it could exist”. The reason for the “hesitation” is clear: The “significance” (in the actual English, non-statistical sense) of this behavioral illusion is the implication that, if organisms are, indeed, N- (control) systems, then for the last 70 years (at the time the paper was written, now going on 100 years) scientific psychologists have been studying an illusion. They have been studying an illusory causal connection between independent (q.d) and dependent (q.o) variables when they should have been studying the reason these apparent causal relationships exist; the variables organisms control (q.i). As Bill put it in his Foreword to my book Mind Readings:Experimental Studies of Purpose “…if the phenomenon you see here really works as this model [PCT–RM] shows it to work, then a whole segment of the scientific literature needs to be deposited in the wastebasket.”  Â

RM: So what I would like to do in this thread is first show how the behavioral illusion is involved in some examples of conventional psychological research and, second, try to come up with some ideas for what some PCT based research might look like (some possible research projects for Leeanne?). I did a little of this at the end of my paper “Taking Purpose into Account in Experimental Psychology” which is reprinted as chapter 2 “Doing Research on Purpose”; the relevant discussion is on pp. 49-53.

RM: So let’s start with examples of how the behavioral illusion is involved in some examples of conventional research. I can start with one that Bill already analyzed: the shock avoidance experiment. This is an operant conditioning experiment where the independent variable is the seeing of the average interval between shocks (if the rat does nothing) and the dependent variable is the rate of bar pressing (which can prevent the shock). The conventional interpretation of the results is that the average interval between shocks causes (or selects) response rate. The PCT view is that this is an illusion; what is actually happening is that the rats are controlling a perception of the probability of getting shocked, trying to keep that probability at 0.Â

RM: Other ideas are welcome.Â

BestÂ

Rick

···

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Alex_Gomez-Marin]

RM: Other ideas are welcome.Â

AGM: The speed-curvature power-law, of course! You just need to rewrite x as x/3+2x/3, define D as x/3 and then show that x scales like 2/3 unless one rewrites it again, now with some statistical spicing to make the dish swallowable by ignorant/indifferent reviewers, dull editors and hungry authors. It is also called “the mathematically illiterate behavioral delusion”. By the way, long life to tele-preaching Powers over and over again, without adding much, and at the expense of Procrustean logic and sophistic narratives. Post-datum: I truly love that 1978 paper.

···

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

Due to some minor (but potentially confusing) typos I’m re-posting this:

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.29.1525)]

RM: I’m changing the name of this thread once again because I think the focus on the behavioral illusion per se misses the point of its importance. The point of the behavioral illusion – the reason why Bill brought it up in the 1978 Psych Review paper – is because it explains why psychologists continue to study the behavior of living organisms as though those organisms were purposeless objects. As Bill puts it in the Psych Review paper, psychologists continue to study N-systems (control systems) as though they were Z-systems (causal systems).Â

RM: The behavioral illusion shows that N-systems will appear to behave like Z systems – systems whose responses are caused by stimuli – when the variables they are controlling are ignored. An N-system appears to behave like a Z-system when a stimulus (independent variable) has a statistically significant “effect” on its behavior (dependent variable): this is the behavioral illusion.Â

RM: In terms of the technical terms of the Psych Review paper, Powers shows that, when one is dealing with an N- rather than a Z- system, the relationship between an independent (q.d) and dependent (q.o) variable that appears to reflect a causal connection between q.d and q.o via the organism, f(), actually reflects the inverse of the feedback connection, g(), from q.o to the controlled input, q.i. So psychological researchers are studying the causal connection from q.o to q.i, as inÂ

  q.o = g-1[q.i* - h(q.d)]          (1)

(where q.i* is the reference state of q.i) rather than what they think they are studying; the (non-existent, in N systems) causal connection, via the organism, from q.d to q.o, as inÂ

  q.o = f[h(q.d)]                (2)

RM: Powers says about the comparison of equations 1 and 2 above that it “…reveals a behavioral illusion of such significance that one hesitates to believe it could exist”. The reason for the “hesitation” is clear: The “significance” (in the actual English, non-statistical sense) of this behavioral illusion is the implication that, if organisms are, indeed, N- (control) systems, then for the last 70 years (at the time the paper was written, now going on 100 years) scientific psychologists have been studying an illusion. They have been studying an illusory causal connection between independent (q.d) and dependent (q.o) variables when they should have been studying the reason these apparent causal relationships exist; the variables organisms control (q.i). As Bill put it in his Foreword to my book Mind Readings:Experimental Studies of Purpose “…if the phenomenon you see here really works as this model [PCT–RM] shows it to work, then a whole segment of the scientific literature needs to be deposited in the wastebasket.”  Â

RM: So what I would like to do in this thread is first show how the behavioral illusion is involved in some examples of conventional psychological research and, second, try to come up with some ideas for what some PCT based research might look like (some possible research projects for Leeanne?). I did a little of this at the end of my paper “Taking Purpose into Account in Experimental Psychology” which is reprinted as chapter 2 “Doing Research on Purpose”; the relevant discussion is on pp. 49-53.

RM: So let’s start with examples of how the behavioral illusion is involved in some examples of conventional research. I can start with one that Bill already analyzed: the shock avoidance experiment. This is an operant conditioning experiment where the independent variable is the seeing of the average interval between shocks (if the rat does nothing) and the dependent variable is the rate of bar pressing (which can prevent the shock). The conventional interpretation of the results is that the average interval between shocks causes (or selects) response rate. The PCT view is that this is an illusion; what is actually happening is that the rats are controlling a perception of the probability of getting shocked, trying to keep that probability at 0.Â

RM: Other ideas are welcome.Â

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.29.1750)]

···

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

RM: Other ideas are welcome.Â

AGM: The speed-curvature power-law, of course!Â

RM: Yes, but I would prefer examples of the behavioral illusoin as it exists in experimental research. As I noted in the paper, the speed-curvature power-law is not based on experimental data; you aren’t manipulating curvature to determine its effect on velocity.Â

AGM: You just need to rewrite x as x/3+2x/3, define D as x/3 and then show that x scales like 2/3 unless one rewrites it again, now with some statistical spicing to make the dish swallowable by ignorant/indifferent reviewers, dull editors and hungry authors.

RM: I only wrote the paper in order to see if I was the only ignorant reviewer around. I was happy to discover that there were several others. The ones I know who reviewed the paper before I submitted it have advanced degrees in math and/or computer science and are senior scientists at the think tanks where I used to work (Aerospace Corp. and RAND). So I was thrilled to have them as fellow ignoramuses.Â

AGM: By the way, long life to tele-preaching Powers over and over again, without adding much, and at the expense of Procrustean logic and sophistic narratives.Â

RM: I try my best.

AGM: Post-datum: I truly love that 1978 paper.

RM: Apparently behavioral researchers derive very different messages from that paper. Which is not surprising since the paper very tactfully (possibly too tactfully) says to these researchers: “All the research you have done in the context of the causal model of behavior can be thrown into the wastebasket”. What researcher would want to hear that? What granting agency wants to hear that?Â

[Note to Leeann and others contemplating a career in scientific psychology: If you are reading this thread, the response to Powers discovery of a “behavioral illusion” that results when you study control systems as though they were causal systems is why it’s probably not a good idea to propose a PCT research project until you get your degree and then tenure (if you are pursuing an academic career) Â or a good position in the “real world”. That’s what one of the reviewers of my “ignorant” paper did; he is now one of the few people in the world doing great PCT research but he started doing it only after he got tenure.]

Best regards

Rick

Â

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

Due to some minor (but potentially confusing) typos I’m re-posting this:

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.29.1525)]

RM: I’m changing the name of this thread once again because I think the focus on the behavioral illusion per se misses the point of its importance. The point of the behavioral illusion – the reason why Bill brought it up in the 1978 Psych Review paper – is because it explains why psychologists continue to study the behavior of living organisms as though those organisms were purposeless objects. As Bill puts it in the Psych Review paper, psychologists continue to study N-systems (control systems) as though they were Z-systems (causal systems).Â

RM: The behavioral illusion shows that N-systems will appear to behave like Z systems – systems whose responses are caused by stimuli – when the variables they are controlling are ignored. An N-system appears to behave like a Z-system when a stimulus (independent variable) has a statistically significant “effect” on its behavior (dependent variable): this is the behavioral illusion.Â

RM: In terms of the technical terms of the Psych Review paper, Powers shows that, when one is dealing with an N- rather than a Z- system, the relationship between an independent (q.d) and dependent (q.o) variable that appears to reflect a causal connection between q.d and q.o via the organism, f(), actually reflects the inverse of the feedback connection, g(), from q.o to the controlled input, q.i. So psychological researchers are studying the causal connection from q.o to q.i, as inÂ

  q.o = g-1[q.i* - h(q.d)]          (1)

(where q.i* is the reference state of q.i) rather than what they think they are studying; the (non-existent, in N systems) causal connection, via the organism, from q.d to q.o, as inÂ

  q.o = f[h(q.d)]                (2)

RM: Powers says about the comparison of equations 1 and 2 above that it “…reveals a behavioral illusion of such significance that one hesitates to believe it could exist”. The reason for the “hesitation” is clear: The “significance” (in the actual English, non-statistical sense) of this behavioral illusion is the implication that, if organisms are, indeed, N- (control) systems, then for the last 70 years (at the time the paper was written, now going on 100 years) scientific psychologists have been studying an illusion. They have been studying an illusory causal connection between independent (q.d) and dependent (q.o) variables when they should have been studying the reason these apparent causal relationships exist; the variables organisms control (q.i). As Bill put it in his Foreword to my book Mind Readings:Experimental Studies of Purpose “…if the phenomenon you see here really works as this model [PCT–RM] shows it to work, then a whole segment of the scientific literature needs to be deposited in the wastebasket.”  Â

RM: So what I would like to do in this thread is first show how the behavioral illusion is involved in some examples of conventional psychological research and, second, try to come up with some ideas for what some PCT based research might look like (some possible research projects for Leeanne?). I did a little of this at the end of my paper “Taking Purpose into Account in Experimental Psychology” which is reprinted as chapter 2 “Doing Research on Purpose”; the relevant discussion is on pp. 49-53.

RM: So let’s start with examples of how the behavioral illusion is involved in some examples of conventional research. I can start with one that Bill already analyzed: the shock avoidance experiment. This is an operant conditioning experiment where the independent variable is the seeing of the average interval between shocks (if the rat does nothing) and the dependent variable is the rate of bar pressing (which can prevent the shock). The conventional interpretation of the results is that the average interval between shocks causes (or selects) response rate. The PCT view is that this is an illusion; what is actually happening is that the rats are controlling a perception of the probability of getting shocked, trying to keep that probability at 0.Â

RM: Other ideas are welcome.Â

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[John_and_Leeanne_Wri]

[From Leeanne Wright (2017.03.30.AEST)]

Hi Rick and others,

LW: This is something I have thought about a lot and it is sound, yet frustrating, advice. I have to remind myself that there is a higher goal…. Still, great to work on it in the background with a view to the future…

LW: For those of you who do have tenure/jobs in the real world, what is your experience like given that you have well and truly come out of the closet, so to speak? I gather many of you have found it difficult to get papers published in the past…Is that changing at all?

Regards
Leeanne

···

RM: Apparently behavioral researchers derive very different messages from that paper. Which is not surprising since the paper very tactfully (possibly too tactfully) says to these researchers: “All the research you have done in the context of the causal model of behavior can be thrown into the wastebasket”. What researcher would want to hear that? What granting agency wants to hear that?

[Note to Leeann and others contemplating a career in scientific psychology: If you are reading this thread, the response to Powers discovery of a “behavioral illusion” that results when you study control systems as though they were causal systems is why it’s probably not a good idea to propose a PCT research project until you get your degree and then tenure (if you are pursuing an academic career) or a good position in the “real world”. That’s what one of the reviewers of my “ignorant” paper did; he is now one of the few people in the world doing great PCT research but he started doing it only after he got tenure.]

–
Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

Due to some minor (but potentially confusing) typos I’m re-posting this:

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.29.1525)]

RM: I’m changing the name of this thread once again because I think the focus on the behavioral illusion per se misses the point of its importance. The point of the behavioral illusion – the reason why Bill brought it up in the 1978 Psych Review paper – is because it explains why psychologists continue to study the behavior of living organisms as though those organisms were purposeless objects. As Bill puts it in the Psych Review paper, psychologists continue to study N-systems (control systems) as though they were Z-systems (causal systems).

RM: The behavioral illusion shows that N-systems will appear to behave like Z systems – systems whose responses are caused by stimuli – when the variables they are controlling are ignored. An N-system appears to behave like a Z-system when a stimulus (independent variable) has a statistically significant “effect” on its behavior (dependent variable): this is the behavioral illusion.

RM: In terms of the technical terms of the Psych Review paper, Powers shows that, when one is dealing with an N- rather than a Z- system, the relationship between an independent (q.d) and dependent (q.o) variable that appears to reflect a causal connection between q.d and q.o via the organism, f(), actually reflects the inverse of the feedback connection, g(), from q.o to the controlled input, q.i. So psychological researchers are studying the causal connection from q.o to q.i, as in

q.o = g-1[q.i* - h(q.d)] (1)

(where q.i* is the reference state of q.i) rather than what they think they are studying; the (non-existent, in N systems) causal connection, via the organism, from q.d to q.o, as in

q.o = f[h(q.d)] (2)

RM: Powers says about the comparison of equations 1 and 2 above that it “…reveals a behavioral illusion of such significance that one hesitates to believe it could exist”. The reason for the “hesitation” is clear: The “significance” (in the actual English, non-statistical sense) of this behavioral illusion is the implication that, if organisms are, indeed, N- (control) systems, then for the last 70 years (at the time the paper was written, now going on 100 years) scientific psychologists have been studying an illusion. They have been studying an illusory causal connection between independent (q.d) and dependent (q.o) variables when they should have been studying the reason these apparent causal relationships exist; the variables organisms control (q.i). As Bill put it in his Foreword to my book Mind Readings:Experimental Studies of Purpose “…if the phenomenon you see here really works as this model [PCT–RM] shows it to work, then a whole segment of the scientific literature needs to be deposited in the wastebasket.”

RM: So what I would like to do in this thread is first show how the behavioral illusion is involved in some examples of conventional psychological research and, second, try to come up with some ideas for what some PCT based research might look like (some possible research projects for Leeanne?). I did a little of this at the end of my paper “Taking Purpose into Account in Experimental Psychology” which is reprinted as chapter 2 “Doing Research on Purpose”; the relevant discussion is on pp. 49-53.

RM: So let’s start with examples of how the behavioral illusion is involved in some examples of conventional research. I can start with one that Bill already analyzed: the shock avoidance experiment. This is an operant conditioning experiment where the independent variable is the seeing of the average interval between shocks (if the rat does nothing) and the dependent variable is the rate of bar pressing (which can prevent the shock). The conventional interpretation of the results is that the average interval between shocks causes (or selects) response rate. The PCT view is that this is an illusion; what is actually happening is that the rats are controlling a perception of the probability of getting shocked, trying to keep that probability at 0.

RM: Other ideas are welcome.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2017.03.29.23.07]

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.29.1750)]

That is really truly shocking, considering that the mathematical

section section on page 2 says near the beginning:

···

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Alex
Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com
wrote:

                  RM:

Other ideas are welcome.

                AGM:

The speed-curvature power-law, of course!

          RM: Yes, but I would prefer examples of the behavioral

illusoin as it exists in experimental research. As I
noted in the paper, the speed-curvature
power-law is not based on experimental data; you
aren’t manipulating curvature to determine its effect on
velocity.

                AGM:

You just need to rewrite x as x/3+2x/3, define D as
x/3 and then show that x scales like 2/3 unless one
rewrites it again, now with some statistical spicing
to make the dish swallowable by ignorant/indifferent
reviewers, dull editors and hungry authors.

          RM: I only wrote the paper in order to see if I was the

only ignorant reviewer around. I was happy to discover
that there were several others. The ones I know who
reviewed the paper before I submitted it have advanced
degrees in math and/or computer science and are senior
scientists at the think tanks where I used to work
(Aerospace Corp. and RAND). So I was thrilled to have them
as fellow ignoramuses.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.20.0900)]

···

Martin Taylor (2017.03.29.23.07)–

MT: That is really truly shocking

RM: I bet. But as we (will) say (in the upcoming March for Science):Â

What do we want?

Evidence-based science!

When do we want it?Â

After peer review!

BestÂ

Rick

Â

, considering that the mathematical

section section on page 2 says near the beginning:

----------

The instantaneous curvature of a two- dimensional curved movement is

calculated as follows:

R=(Ẋ2+Ẏ2)3∕2∕|Ẋ⋅Ÿ−Ẍ⋅Ẏ| (3)

where Ẍ and Ÿ are the instantaneous accelerations of the movement

in the X and Y dimensions, respectively. R is a measure of the
radius of curvature at each instant during a movement; the larger
the value of R, the smaller the curvature at that point in the
movement.

-----------



The idea that a measure of the curvature of a line on a piece of

paper can have any relation to speed or acceleration should have
been obvious to any of them as utter nonsense if they had actually
read it. Any measure of the properties of the line can use only
properties of the line, not properties of what someone at some time
might choose to do with the line. Rick sneakily transfers the
curvature (a property of a static object) and treats it as though it
applied directly to any movement. It does apply to a movement, but
ONLY if that movement is at a steady velocity along the curve (as is
explained in the Wikipedia article on curvature). This was all
explained to Rick in many different wordings and from different
methods of approach by several people over a period of months.

But I'm not going to argue this any more. All anyone has to do, and

this was the case since an hour or two after Rick first presented
his fantasy idea, it to ask themselves how the concept of “velocity”
and “acceleration” could possibly be part of a description of a
static object.

A quote from the most recent issue of "Fantasy and Science Fiction"

(to which i bought a lifetime subscription 60 years ago) seems
appropriate.

"When someone is set in their assumptions, you can't win the

argument anyway. It reminds me of an old joke where a situation of
this kind is likened to playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon will
knock over all the pieces, poop on the board, and then stalk off
certain that it has won the game."

I have lost any respect I might have had for Experimental Brain

Research, and I imagine many of its readers will have lost any
respect they might have had for scientists who try to present PCT as
a serious theory of human behaviour.

Martin

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

          RM: I only wrote the paper in order to see if I was the

only ignorant reviewer around. I was happy to discover
that there were several others. The ones I know who
reviewed the paper before I submitted it have advanced
degrees in math and/or computer science and are senior
scientists at the think tanks where I used to work
(Aerospace Corp. and RAND). So I was thrilled to have them
as fellow ignoramuses.Â

[Alex_Gomez-Marin]

Rick, I respect your previous work, but you have been bullshitting quite a bit lately…Â

···

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.20.0900)]

Martin Taylor (2017.03.29.23.07)–

MT: That is really truly shocking

RM: I bet. But as we (will) say (in the upcoming March for Science):Â

What do we want?

Evidence-based science!

When do we want it?Â

After peer review!

BestÂ

Rick

Â

, considering that the mathematical

section section on page 2 says near the beginning:

----------

The instantaneous curvature of a two- dimensional curved movement is

calculated as follows:

R=(Ẋ2+Ẏ2)3∕2∕|Ẋ⋅Ÿ−Ẍ⋅Ẏ| (3)

where Ẍ and Ÿ are the instantaneous accelerations of the movement

in the X and Y dimensions, respectively. R is a measure of the
radius of curvature at each instant during a movement; the larger
the value of R, the smaller the curvature at that point in the
movement.

-----------



The idea that a measure of the curvature of a line on a piece of

paper can have any relation to speed or acceleration should have
been obvious to any of them as utter nonsense if they had actually
read it. Any measure of the properties of the line can use only
properties of the line, not properties of what someone at some time
might choose to do with the line. Rick sneakily transfers the
curvature (a property of a static object) and treats it as though it
applied directly to any movement. It does apply to a movement, but
ONLY if that movement is at a steady velocity along the curve (as is
explained in the Wikipedia article on curvature). This was all
explained to Rick in many different wordings and from different
methods of approach by several people over a period of months.

But I'm not going to argue this any more. All anyone has to do, and

this was the case since an hour or two after Rick first presented
his fantasy idea, it to ask themselves how the concept of “velocity”
and “acceleration” could possibly be part of a description of a
static object.

A quote from the most recent issue of "Fantasy and Science Fiction"

(to which i bought a lifetime subscription 60 years ago) seems
appropriate.

"When someone is set in their assumptions, you can't win the

argument anyway. It reminds me of an old joke where a situation of
this kind is likened to playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon will
knock over all the pieces, poop on the board, and then stalk off
certain that it has won the game."

I have lost any respect I might have had for Experimental Brain

Research, and I imagine many of its readers will have lost any
respect they might have had for scientists who try to present PCT as
a serious theory of human behaviour.

Martin

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

          RM: I only wrote the paper in order to see if I was the

only ignorant reviewer around. I was happy to discover
that there were several others. The ones I know who
reviewed the paper before I submitted it have advanced
degrees in math and/or computer science and are senior
scientists at the think tanks where I used to work
(Aerospace Corp. and RAND). So I was thrilled to have them
as fellow ignoramuses.Â

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.30.1000)]

···

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

AGM: Rick, I respect your previous work, but you have been bullshitting quite a bit lately…Â

RM: Yes, like Gregor Samsa in Kafka’s Metamorphosis I woke one day and found that I had changed from a respectable PCT researcher into a bullshitter and the enemy of PCT. Maybe it was something I ate.Â

RM: But I think there is another, more plausible explanation. I think I didn’t change at all but people’s perception of me changed when my PCT explanations of things didn’t jibe with what people thought PCT should say about those things. This is especially true when PCT explanations contradict ideas that people hold dear – ideas like selection by consequences (reinforcement) and information theory come to mind. C’est la vie.

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2017.03.30.13.19]

After sleeping on it, I guess should have asked another couple of

questions before saying that it was shocking that these
presubmission reviewers approved the paper for publication. I should
have asked:

1. What did you ask them? was along the lines of (a) “Here’s a draft
   of a paper I hope to submit, what do you think?” Or was it along the
   lines of (b) “Here’s a paper I want to submit. Here and here are a
   couple of parts that have been severely criticized. Could you check
   them carefully to see if the critics are correct?”
2. The paper contains no explanation of why it is legitimate to use
   “velocity” and “acceleration” of a moving object as measures of an
   aspect of the shape of a static object. Why was this explanation
   omitted? Such an explanation seems to be mandatory, given that to
   use them flies in the face both of common sense and of the
   mathematically accepted derivation of the radius of curvature. Did
   the internal (or the journal) reviewers ask about this issue?

···

On 2017/03/30 12:00 PM, Richard Marken
wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.20.0900)]

Martin Taylor (2017.03.29.23.07)–

                        RM: I only wrote the paper in order to

see if I was the only ignorant reviewer
around. I was happy to discover that there
were several others. The ones I know who
reviewed the paper before I submitted it
have advanced degrees in math and/or
computer science and are senior scientists
at the think tanks where I used to work
(Aerospace Corp. and RAND). So I was
thrilled to have them as fellow
ignoramuses.

MT: That is really truly shocking

RM: I bet.

should
should

[_Boris_Hartman]

Down…

···

From: Richard Marken [mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 7:03 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: PCT Research (was Behavioral Illusion)

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.30.1000)]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

AGM: Rick, I respect your previous work, but you have been bullshitting quite a bit lately…

RM: Yes, like Gregor Samsa in Kafka’s Metamorphosis I woke one day and found that I had changed from a respectable PCT researcher into a bullshitter and the enemy of PCT. Maybe it was something I ate.

HB : All the problems are in you Rick. Only you can solve them. Maybe you also forgot to eat. I can’t say but you know it for sure.

RM: But I think there is another, more plausible explanation. I think I didn’t change at all but people’s perception of me changed when my PCT explanations of things didn’t jibe with what people thought PCT should say about those things. This is especially true when PCT explanations contradict ideas that people hold dear – ideas like selection by consequences (reinforcement) and information theory come to mind. C’est la vie.

HB : Well, well Rick I don’t know to whom you are lying but one thing is sure. You don’t respect yourself. But you are right that your explanation of PCT is awful, dreadfull, don’t feet here on this forum. It’s NON-PCT… You said it ffor yourself. And seflcritics is the best way to change.

RM earlier : In my rush to show that this is not the case I came up with what has to be the dumbest rebuttal of all time – outdoing even myself in stupidity;-) I claimed that it was q.i*g rather than q.i that is the Input Quantity in the LiveBlock demo. This was simply, utterly wrong.

RM earlier : At the risk of further reinforcing Boris’ already rather low opinion of me I feel compelled to admit to having made a rather big mistake in my discussion with Rupert regarding the relationship between the environment and perception.

HB : Just listen to your heart…J. You admitted that you are stupid but you can be also nice guy who admitt his mistakes. You made so many of them in last posts that will need a truck to

take away all the bullshit you shaked down on CSGnet. Or better admitt your mistakes and start with PCT.

Best,

Boris

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[_Boris_Hartman]

Sorry Alex to jump in. You know that I agree with you…J. But I don’t see the problem that we agree but that also Rick agree with us. See my answer to his post.

Best,

Boris

···

From: Alex Gomez-Marin [mailto:agomezmarin@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:15 PM
To: csgnet
Subject: Re: PCT Research (was Behavioral Illusion)

Rick, I respect your previous work, but you have been bullshitting quite a bit lately…

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.20.0900)]

Martin Taylor (2017.03.29.23.07)–

RM: I only wrote the paper in order to see if I was the only ignorant reviewer around. I was happy to discover that there were several others. The ones I know who reviewed the paper before I submitted it have advanced degrees in math and/or computer science and are senior scientists at the think tanks where I used to work (Aerospace Corp. and RAND). So I was thrilled to have them as fellow ignoramuses.

MT: That is really truly shocking

RM: I bet. But as we (will) say (in the upcoming March for Science):

What do we want?

Evidence-based science!

When do we want it?

After peer review!

Best

Rick

, considering that the mathematical section section on page 2 says near the beginning:

---

The instantaneous curvature of a two- dimensional curved movement is calculated as follows:
R=(Ẋ2+Ẏ2)3∕2∕|Ẋ⋅Ÿ−Ẍ⋅Ẏ| (3)
where Ẍ and Ÿ are the instantaneous accelerations of the movement in the X and Y dimensions, respectively. R is a measure of the radius of curvature at each instant during a movement; the larger the value of R, the smaller the curvature at that point in the movement.

The idea that a measure of the curvature of a line on a piece of paper can have any relation to speed or acceleration should have been obvious to any of them as utter nonsense if they had actually read it. Any measure of the properties of the line can use only properties of the line, not properties of what someone at some time might choose to do with the line. Rick sneakily transfers the curvature (a property of a static object) and treats it as though it applied directly to any movement. It does apply to a movement, but ONLY if that movement is at a steady velocity along the curve (as is explained in the Wikipedia article on curvature). This was all explained to Rick in many different wordings and from different methods of approach by several people over a period of months.

But I’m not going to argue this any more. All anyone has to do, and this was the case since an hour or two after Rick first presented his fantasy idea, it to ask themselves how the concept of “velocity” and “acceleration” could possibly be part of a description of a static object.

A quote from the most recent issue of “Fantasy and Science Fiction” (to which i bought a lifetime subscription 60 years ago) seems appropriate.

“When someone is set in their assumptions, you can’t win the argument anyway. It reminds me of an old joke where a situation of this kind is likened to playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon will knock over all the pieces, poop on the board, and then stalk off certain that it has won the game.”

I have lost any respect I might have had for Experimental Brain Research, and I imagine many of its readers will have lost any respect they might have had for scientists who try to present PCT as a serious theory of human behaviour.

Martin

–

Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Alex_Gomez-Marin]

Rick, seriously: you make of PCT a religion — not that religions are bad, but they are not sciencce.

···

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Martin Taylor mmt-csg@mmtaylor.net wrote:

[Martin Taylor 2017.03.30.13.19]

  On 2017/03/30 12:00 PM, Richard Marken

wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.20.0900)]

After sleeping on it, I guess should have asked another couple of

questions before saying that it was shocking that these
presubmission reviewers approved the paper for publication. I should
have asked:

1) What did you ask them? was along the lines of (a) "Here's a draft

of a paper I hope to submit, what do you think?" Or was it along the
lines of (b) “Here’s a paper I want to submit. Here and here are a
couple of parts that have been severely criticized. Could you check
them carefully to see if the critics are correct?”

2) The paper contains no explanation of why it is legitimate to use

“velocity” and “acceleration” of a moving object as measures of an
aspect of the shape of a static object. Why was this explanation
omitted? Such an explanation seems to be mandatory, given that to
use them flies in the face both of common sense and of the
mathematically accepted derivation of the radius of curvature. Did
the internal (or the journal) reviewers ask about this issue?

------------

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.30.1000)] RM: But I think there is

another, more plausible explanation. I think I didn’t change at all
but people’s perception of me changed when my PCT explanations of
things didn’t jibe with what people thought PCT should say
about those things.

That may sometimes be true, but in the case of this paper, the

problem is that your explanation of things did not jibe with what
conventional mathematics indicated you should say about
them.

Your proper action, if you control for being seen as a responsible

scientist, is to ask the editor to withdraw the paper – or at the
very least, to draw the editor’s attention to the points in dispute
and ask for a mathematically competent person to look at them
carefully before withdrawing it if the referee agrees with the
criticisms.

Martin

Martin Taylor (2017.03.29.23.07)–

MT: That is really truly shocking

RM: I bet.

                        RM: I only wrote the paper in order to

see if I was the only ignorant reviewer
around. I was happy to discover that there
were several others. The ones I know who
reviewed the paper before I submitted it
have advanced degrees in math and/or
computer science and are senior scientists
at the think tanks where I used to work
(Aerospace Corp. and RAND). So I was
thrilled to have them as fellow
ignoramuses.Â

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.03.30.1520)]

···

Martin Taylor (2017.03.30.13.19)–

MT: After sleeping on it, I guess should have asked another couple of

questions before saying that it was shocking that these
presubmission reviewers approved the paper for publication. I should
have asked:

MT: 1) What did you ask them? was along the lines of (a) "Here's a draft

of a paper I hope to submit, what do you think?" Or was it along the
lines of (b) “Here’s a paper I want to submit. Here and here are a
couple of parts that have been severely criticized. Could you check
them carefully to see if the critics are correct?”

RM: The latter.Â

Â

MT: 2) The paper contains no explanation of why it is legitimate to use

“velocity” and “acceleration” of a moving object as measures of an
aspect of the shape of a static object. Why was this explanation
omitted?

RM: Because they are not being used as measures of an aspect of the shape of a static object; they are being used as measures of aspects of movement trajectories, of a pursuer in one case and of a toy helicopter in another.Â

MT: Such an explanation seems to be mandatory, given that to

use them flies in the face both of common sense and of the
mathematically accepted derivation of the radius of curvature. Did
the internal (or the journal) reviewers ask about this issue?

RM: Not a peep. Probably because they read the paper carefully and knew that these were measures of data that represented movement trajectories and not static shapes.Â

Â

MT: Your proper action, if you control for being seen as a responsible

scientist, is to ask the editor to withdraw the paper – or at the
very least, to draw the editor’s attention to the points in dispute
and ask for a mathematically competent person to look at them
carefully before withdrawing it if the referee agrees with the
criticisms

RM: I think the term “responsible scientist” points to a different perception for you than it does for me. I think I was being a responsible scientist by submitting a report of my evidence-based research to a journal for peer review. (Remember, what we want is evidence based science and when we want it is after per review). These reviewers (not me) then decided whether the report should be withdrawn (rejected ) or not.Â

RM: Despite the positive pre-submission reviews from my mathematician friends I expected the reviewers’ decision to be to reject the paper. This was based on the fact that I was submitting it to a journal (Experimental Brain Research) where much of the power law of movement research, which the paper critiques, had been published. I was really just curious to see what the basis for the rejection would be.Â

RM: But to my surprise the paper was tentatively accepted with the requirement of a major revision. The required revision had to do with the section of the paper on the behavioral illusion; it was considered too long with too much opinion. None of the reviewers had any problem with the mathematical/statistical findings. If I had not included the section on the behavioral illusion, the paper would have been accepted as submitted.Â

RM: I’m sorry you don’t like the paper; I think it is one of my best because it provides a nice explanation of the PCT approach to explaining purposeful curved movements. It also provides some reasonable speculation about why researchers have failed to see that the power law of movement is a statistical artifact – a behavioral illusion that results from ignoring the purpose of behavior.Â

Best regards

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery