peer review [was: Bill Powers' way]

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.06.14 10:20 EDT]

Michelle Ivers (2004.06.14 1800 EST) –

From Bill Powers (2004.06.12.0418)
Ed Ford has worked hard for 20 years, more than 20 years, to
grasp the meaning of control theory and translate it into terms that his
followers can accept and understand. He is the first to admit that this
is difficult for him. I am trying to make it less difficult.

I would have thought that after more than
20 years he would have found a better way of writing it than “each
of us is endowed with a fascinating perceptual control
system”. IF you are happy with this definition Bill, then
that’s great.

Is this a definition? What is it a definition of?

Have you spoken with Ed about your concerns?

I’m not sure what you are asking of Bill, Michelle. Do you want him to
correct Ed’s writings more vigorously? Denounce misstatements in
them?

Seems to me Bill has been backing a bit away from the role of arbiter of
PCT correctness. I think that’s a good thing. You’re exemplifying how
easy it is for the rest of us to take up the slack (as best we
can).

I think probably he assumed that role initially when it was thrust upon
him by people struggling to “get it”, then more vigorously when
some folks took the PCT banner and ran off sideways with it, especially
those writing books and running workshops.

Sometimes it’s hard to tell when defense against misunderstanding slips
into resistance to alternative views that might have some merit. The
subjectivism that Bill Williams has been addressing makes this probably
inevitable. If the only criterion is your own judgement of your own
experience, a conceptual edifice supported by however careful logic and
testing can make one blind to alternative routes of experience, logic,
and testing that may be equally careful. Kind of a local minimum
problem.

I can understand that the peer review process in established fields has
been deeply frustrating for those who have tried to publish PCT research.
That leaves a bad taste. I have had such experiences expressing heterodox
views for peer-reviewed journals, even without introducing PCT. But that
does not mean that peer review is a bad process. Science depends upon
peer review. PCT is perhaps gradually moving from mentor review to peer
review. Your concerns about Ed’s writings seem like an inchoate
expression of this shift, as have some other discussions on the net
from time to time. Presentations at the annual meeting at their best
undergo a kind of peer review.

I wonder if we could establish a peer review process that is more formal,
with more discipline and focus. This would help take the focus off Bill
and Rick as arbiters or mentor-reviewers. But peer review to what end? We
have no formal publication. We do have a website. Suppose instead of
thrashing things out here when someone proposes an idea, we urge them to
flesh it out as a paper, then subject it to peer review before publishing
it on the CSG web site. Different topic areas might develop.

What do you think?

    /Bruce

Nevin

···

At 05:50 PM 6/14/2004 +1000, Michelle Ivers wrote:

2

[From Michelle Ivers (2004.06.15. 1645 EST)]

From Bruce Nevin (2004.06.14 10:20 EDT

Have you spoken with Ed about your concerns?

Yes. I first brought up my concerns with Ed over 2 years ago when he first wrote his article “The Heart of RTP”. I asked him many questions about some of the stuff he was writing but Ed refused to answer my questions until I had told him what training I had and how many books and videos I’d read and watched.

I’m not sure what you are asking of Bill, Michelle. Do you want him to correct Ed’s writings more vigorously? Denounce misstatements in them?

Seeing as its so important to you Bruce, I was asking Bill for clarification that what Ed was writing and teaching was consistent with PCT. (Seeing as Tom is no longer associated with RTP - there is no-one to really teach PCT)

Bill stated that he wanted to work with people who were willing to work with him and put some basic PCT principles into RTP.

From exchanges with Ed Ford and the now defunct Respthink and more recently here on CSGNet, I’ve come to a realisation that its easier to just nod and agree.

It seems really strange to me that asking questions creates so much disturbance for people on these lists.

Michelle

···
3

From[Bill Williams 15 June 2004 4:40 AM CST]

[From Michelle Ivers (2004.06.15. 1645 EST)]

It seems really strange to me that asking questions creates so much >disturbance for people on these lists.

I don't see what you have to complain about. Nobody has offered
to bite you.

Bill Williams

4

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.06.17 17:24 EDT)]

Michelle Ivers (2004.06.15. 1645 EST)–

Bruce Nevin (2004.06.14 10:20 EDT –
I’m not sure what you are asking of Bill, Michelle. Do you want him
to correct Ed’s writings more vigorously? Denounce misstatements in them?Seeing as its so important to you Bruce, I
was asking Bill for clarification …

It seems really strange to me that asking
questions creates so much disturbance for people on these
lists.

And I was asking you for clarification. Sorry that my question created so
much disturbance for you. Not that it was so very important to me, but I
really was puzzled at what result you wanted, or if you were only
complaining about inconsistencies. Am I correct in understanding that you
felt that I was butting in on a private conversation and that I shouldn’t
have asked?

I say again, but not privately to you, Michelle, I think that Bill should
not assume or have thrust upon him a role of arbiter general of PCT
correctness, and I was glad to read into that exchange some indication of
his backing away from that. With a peer review process his input could be
more sparse, at a level of comment about the review commentary, and he
could devote more of his experience, talents, and time to more
substantial projects than correcting peoples’ usage of words and being a
foil for peoples’ authority issues. That’s a proposed CV, but as means to
control it peer review as normally practiced with submissions to journals
seems impractical. Lacking a journal and a pool of anonymous reviewers we
would have to create an alternative structure to the same end, and that
requires some creative imagination. So I was broaching the topic. I agree
with a later post, it’s more than time to grow up.

    /Bruce

Nevin

···

At 04:59 PM 6/15/2004 +1000, Michelle Ivers wrote:

5

From[Bill Williams 17 June 2004 5:10 PM CST]

[From Bruce Nevin (2004.06.17 17:24 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin in a post adressed to Michelle says,

Lacking a journal and a pool of anonymous reviewers we would have to create an alternative structure to >the same end, and that requires some creative imagination.

I regard the formation of splinter groups that based upon self-selection have started up alternative discussions of control theory and its applications as a positive development. I find the discussions on the ECACS forum have sometimes been personally helpful. And, I would agree that "some creative imagination" is needed to develop an atnosphere that will foster creative work and a critical, but not neccesarily destructive attitude.

>So I was broaching the topic. I agree with a >later post, it's more than time to grow up.

I would think that a part of growing up would be a matter of discarding subjectivist and arbitrary preconceptions.

Bill Williams

6

[From Bill Powers (2004.06.17.1734 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (2004.06.17 17:24 EDT) --

I say again, but not privately to you, Michelle, I think that Bill should
not assume or have thrust upon him a role of arbiter general of PCT
correctness, and I was glad to read into that exchange some indication of
his backing away from that.

The only things I arbitrate about are my own ideas. If others misquote or
misrepresent my views, I think I have the right to object.

As to peer review, I don't own CSGnet and if you can get agreement to
institute it, then you can institute it. My objections to it seem somewhat
Quixotic, considering the kinds of "discussion" that have been going on
lately. The problem I see is that some people might want to substitute
their own arbitration of substantive comment. But that's really not a
problem for me, or anyone else who can decide simply not to put up with it
if it gets out of hand.

Best,

Bill P.

7

From[Bill Williams 18 June 2004 1:24 AM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.06.17.1734 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (2004.06.17 17:24 EDT) --

I say again, but not privately to you, Michelle, I think that Bill should
not assume or have thrust upon him a role of arbiter general of PCT
correctness, and I was glad to read into that exchange some indication of
his backing away from that.

The problem I see is that some people might want to substitute
their own arbitration of substantive comment. But that's really not a
problem for me, or anyone else who can decide simply not to put up with it
if it gets out of hand.

I think the question might be gets out of "whose hands." Powers' Control
Theory has over time displayed some internal inconsistencies when it has
sometimes reached directly contrary results. Not that Bill Powers' work
is nulified if he sometimes comes to contradictory conclusions. What has
in my perception been lacking in the past has been something like what
you seem to be suggesting that would provide a less arbitrary way of
considering issues regarding the application to control theory to human
behavior and experience.

A difficulty that I can anticipate is illustrated by Bill Powers' recent
description of a human being as a "skin bag." From my standpoint this is
not an adaquate basis from which to begin a description of the a control
theory based analysis of economic and cultural phenomena. It is a starting
point that has, and is continuing to lead to identifiable mistakes in
efforts to apply control theory to difficulties encountered by real human
beings who are there is good reason to think, without being mystical or
magical, more than "skin bags." Bill Powers, of course, has everyright to
claim that human beings are, as matter of physics, chemistry, and neuro-
biology merely "skin bags." And, I have no less right to describe this
doctrine in terms of a scientistic, rather than scientific, sophistology.

The slogan, "All I can know is what I perceive." is a seductive one, in
large part because it is based upon widely held preconceptions concerning
the nature of an agent, or the nature of knowledge and also the process of
perception. If Powers' Control Theory defines the "I" in the slogan as a
"skin bag" then PCT has very little or no prospect for generating a
revolution on the criticial side of the divide in contemporary economics.
If as Powers has recently said, if you don't see it his way then you don't
understand the first thing about control theory, then we have a problem
that will take a very immaginative solution to over come in a way that
will create a possiblity for productive communication.

As it stands, PCT appears to me to be an effective sophistology to use in
fighting the last war-- a war against behaviorism. However, when perceptual
control theory is expounded as "All I can know is what I percieve." then
the implict, or even explicit, individualism of the "skin bag" theory will,
I expect, result in a delayed adoption of control theory on the critical
side in fields such as economics, anthropology, sociology, social psycholgy,
political science, linguistics and else where in social theory. The students
that I work with take a look at PCT and say, "But this is individualism."
And, they are entirely correct.

Powers has never however seen that the issue of "individualism" is an issue
that is worth the effort that would be required of him inorder to understand.
He views social theory with contempt, which if you make such a judgment
without knowing social theory is easy enough to understand. He also makes
such a judgment about people from fields he can designate as infected with
social theory which is perhaps less defensible. The result may be that the
introduction of control theory applications into fields concerned with human
beings ( not defined as skin bags ) will have to wait until the confusion
created by Bill Powers' sophistology subsides.

Bill Williams

8

[From Richard Kennaway (2004.06.18.1028 BST)]

From[Bill Williams 18 June 2004 1:24 AM CST]
The students
that I work with take a look at PCT and say, "But this is individualism."
And, they are entirely correct.

...

The result may be that the
introduction of control theory applications into fields concerned with human
beings ( not defined as skin bags ) will have to wait until the confusion
created by Bill Powers' sophistology subsides.

Why? On your own account, you know control theory, you know
economics, and your goal is to use the former to create a new version
of the latter. So go to it. Given your rejection of Powers' work as
a basis for the matter, and a bunch of students who agree with you,
what is stopping you?

···

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

9

[From Bill Powers (2004.06.18.0707 MDT)]

Bill Williams 18 June 2004 1:24 AM CST-

I think we could achieve much of Bruce Nevin's aim in suggesting a
peer-reviewed list simply by voluntarily adhering to the sorts of rules
that such a list would require. Civility, of course, is one of the primary
requirements, but beyond that, it is usually a requirement that quotations
and citations be given in context, particularly when they might be
disputed. Along the same lines, when it is claimed that any person has
committe an error, it's incumbent on the plaintiff to present evidence and
analysis rather than just presenting the statement as a conclusion without
support.

In the following statements, Bill Williams violates these rules:

I think the question might be gets out of "whose hands." Powers' Control
Theory has over time displayed some internal inconsistencies when it has
sometimes reached directly contrary results.

The internal inconsistencis should be listed and the reason for calling
them inconsistencies should be stated.

A difficulty that I can anticipate is illustrated by Bill Powers' recent
description of a human being as a "skin bag."

The passage or passages in which the quoted term is used should be given,
with enough context to show the writer's meaning.

From my standpoint this is
not an adaquate basis from which to begin a description of the a control
theory based analysis of economic and cultural phenomena. It is a starting
point that has, and is continuing to lead to identifiable mistakes in
efforts to apply control theory to difficulties encountered by real human
beings who are there is good reason to think, without being mystical or
magical, more than "skin bags."

The identifiable mistakes should be listed and an explanation of why they
are said to be mistakes should be presented. If there are "good reasons" as
indicated above, they should be presented so others can draw their own
conclusions. The principle is that simply stating a conclusion does not
make it true. Also, until a claim like the use of the term "skin bags" has
been supported, the writer should not repeatedly use it as supporting
evidence for other claims.

Bill Powers, of course, has everyright to
claim that human beings are, as matter of physics, chemistry, and neuro-
biology merely "skin bags." And, I have no less right to describe this
doctrine in terms of a scientistic, rather than scientific, sophistology.

Neologisms in peer-reviewed documents must be defined, and derogatory
characterizations are generally not publishable without extensive
justification.

The slogan, "All I can know is what I perceive." is a seductive one, in
large part because it is based upon widely held preconceptions concerning
the nature of an agent, or the nature of knowledge and also the process of
perception.

The preconceptions should be spelled out, and any errors in them should be
explained, not merely alluded to. What are Powers' preconceptions
concerning the nature of an agent, of knowledge, and of perception? And
what are proposed to be the correct conceptions, such that others can be
called preconceptions with the usual connotation of _mistaken_ preconceptions?

If Powers' Control Theory defines the "I" in the slogan as a
"skin bag"

This premise must be supported by evidence before it is used to draw
further conclusions. Is there any such slogan? Is there any evidence that
Powers Control Theory (not the meaning of PCT) defines the "I" as a "skin
bag"?

If as Powers has recently said, if you don't see it his way then you don't
understand the first thing about control theory,

This also needs to be supported by a citation, including the context to
show what inspired the statement, if it was actually made. The reference
may be to a reply by Powers to a statement by Williams that Powers doesn't
know the first thing about economics (seen,presumably, Williams' way).

The students
that I work with take a look at PCT and say, "But this is individualism."
And, they are entirely correct.

Before this can be shown as a criticism, it is necessary to lay out what
individualism is, why it is a mistake, and how the actual statements made
by Powers show that he supports individualism. Statements such as "and they
are entirely correct" express an opinion. Before it can be accepted as a
fact, it needs support.

I realize that coming from me, these comments about rules of peer review
will not move Williams to try to comply with them. However, if others on
this list would indicate their agreement or disagreement with my proposals
above, we might get an idea of the impact that peer review would have on
the kinds of posts that will make it through to the list. If peer review
would force comments and disputes to adhere more closely to facts and rely
less on arbitrary opinions, and if it would required clear justifications
for controversial remarks, I might welcome this approach.

Best,

Bill P.

10

From[Bill Willliams 18 June 2004 1:20 PM CST]

[From Richard Kennaway (2004.06.18.1028 BST)]

From[Bill Williams 18 June 2004 1:24 AM CST]
The students
that I work with take a look at PCT and say, "But this is individualism."
And, they are entirely correct.

...

The result may be that the
introduction of control theory applications into fields concerned with human
beings ( not defined as skin bags ) will have to wait until the confusion
created by Bill Powers' sophistology subsides.

Why?

First let me apologise for my having expressed myself poorly. When I said that
"the introduction of control theory will have to wait until the confusion
created by Bill Powers' sophistology subsides." the situtation I had in mind
was what happens when a heterodox graduate student in economics attempts to
read _Behavior: the Control of Perception_. I don't myself have any difficulty
with the way Bill Powers expressed himself in _B:CP_. In a week or so after
reading _B:CP_ I came to the conclusion that using control theory to replace
orthodoxy's principle of maximization it should be possible to re-construct
economic analysis. I didn't initially see precisely how to do this, however,
I didn't have any doubt that it would eventually be possible. Now a couple of
decades later I have what may be enough examples that demonstrate how control
theory can replace maximization. I wish I had more examples, but the worked
out examples are distributed throughout the areas in economics so that if one
is a bit optimistic and inclined to take a bit of risk one might come to the
conclusion that it might genuinely be possible to fill in, in detail, a scheme
of economics using control theory rather than the principle of maximization as
the fundamental principle.

However, I have found that students when they look at _B:CP_ see something quite
different than I saw when I first read the book. My mentor worked for a while
in Herman Muller's fly lab before WWII and partly as a result had a deep interest
in biology and evolutionary theory. The mentor had been convinced that the
problems in economic theory would find a solution when a better conception of what
it meant to be a human being would be generated in the biological and behavioral
sciences. I had approached cybernentics by way of building cybernetic devices,
using Op-Amps. And, by experimenting with my student pilots. My students when they
encounter Bill Powers' work do not do so with this fund of experience. They are
rather well indoctrinated both against individualism, and unfortunately in a
concept of group agency. I agree completely with Bill Powers' arguments contra
this group agency concept which seems to be a residule blend of Durkheim's
sociology and a dilute version of behaviorism. After half a dozen years of
exposure to this Durkheim plus behaviorism doctrine, they face a learning curve
that I never faced. Rather by accident I studied under a mentor's supervision
who was convinced that a group mind was nonsense and behaviorism was one of the
most distructive pesudo-sciences ever created. The mentor considered behaviorism
worse by far than even neo-classical economics. So, in effect this difference
creates about a dozen years difference between these student's conception of what
is plausible and my conception. They've had half a dozen years instruction that
inculcates what is terms the "Standard Social Science Model" (Durkheim plus
behaviorism) and I had half a dozen years exposure to a point of view that was
critical of the typical social science conception. Largely what I do is teach
someone, say a French Marxist how to expound their Marxism more consistently in
respect to details. They are mildly interested in what I am doing with control
theory, and sometimes after a well conducted seminar can be briefly enthusisastic.
However, it creates great difficulties when they can readily see that Bill Powers
as the foremost current advocate of applying control a control theory conception
of human behavior attempts to use control theory to expound the notion that human
beings can be thought of as "skin bags." Perhaps I am making too much of this.
Perhaps the problems that I perceive have some other origin, however, the
arguments that I encounter from students why they are not persuaded of the merits
of recasting economic analysis in terms of control theory frequently have to do
with this issue of their perceiving PCT as one more technocratic expression of an
individualist ideology.

For my own part, my book seems to be coming along-- though almost more slowly
than I would hope, but at least in that regard I don't see any barriers aside
from the time and effort required.

On your own account, you know control theory, you know
economics, and your goal is to use the former to create a new version
of the latter. So go to it.

I am peddling as fast as I can.

Given your rejection of Powers' work

I am only rejecting a part of Powers' work, the part I call the PCT sophistology
that ends in a version of individualism. My rejection of this _part_ of Powers'
work doesn't, as I see it, require me to reject the valid elements contained in
PCT and HPCT. I would even acknowledge that in a context of behaviorism, the
"Behavior is the control of perception." slogan makes a valid point.

as a basis for the matter, and a bunch of students who agree with you,
what is stopping you?

To a large extent the agreement with the students is a matter of a
common anti-individualism. As far as my own work, I could go on, extending
a critique of neo-classical economics, finding more paradoxes and anomolies,
using control theory to resolve the anomolies,and dispell paradoxes.

It was my poorly expressed opinion that I expect that will take considerable
time for an expression of a control theory point of view to emerge that will
be seen as appealing to those with a critical inclination in economics and
social theory that created the impression that _my own_ work is somehow
stopped. Arguing with Powers might seem to an inefficient way of furthing my
own work. However, I find that I have in the past not been as interested in I
might have been in the origins and consequences of individualism. It has been
an education.

Bill Williams