[Dag Forssell 2018-10-08 10:40 PST]
I have just posted my report on publishing. Bruce N asked me to do it a year ago, but now that the conference is in focus...
http://www.pctresources.com/Other/index.html
Best, Dag
Hi Dag,
I take a fast look on what you arranged and I must say it’s good. The content (online documents) are little less superb. I read some articles but the first one was a disaster.
Title :
The Origins and Future of Control Theory in Psychology
Authors :
Warren Mansell University of Manchester
Richard S. Marken Antioch University
HB : Although the “summary” on the beggining is could stand critics of events on “control field”, the main content of artcile is a disaster.
- mistake : “protection from disturbances”
WM/RM :
Control systems are devices that keep variables in preselected (goal) states, protected from disturbances, such as the effect of varying evaporation rates on water
level or the effect of varying loads on engine speed.
HB : Where can we see any Bills’ definition with such a content, specially with “protection from disturbances”. Control in PCT is defined :
Bill P (B:CP):
CONTROL : Achievement and maintenance of a preselected state in the controlling system, through actions on the environment that also cancel the effects of disturbances.
HB : NO. Warren and Rick do not respect original PCT theory, but have to make their own constructs which are obviously wrong. Disturbances have to take some effect on control system so that it can compensate or cancel… There is no such control system that could be “protected” from effects of disturbances like heat is.
WM/RM :
Perhaps the most familiar modern example of a control system is the home thermostat, which keeps a variable, room temperature, in a prespecified goal state, such as 68 °F, protected from disturbances,
such as variations in outdoor temperature.
HB : Room temperature is continuosly under “bombarding” of heat disturbances. How can any place or room temperature be “protected” from heat or cold. I doubt there is such a place in Universe. So can you explain where can be such places that are “protected” from heat disturbances. I suppose that no place in Universe can be isolated (protected from disturbances)
HB : I don’t know for how many times I warned Rick of writing such a nonsense (not only in physical sense) here on CSGnet and in his articles, but it seems that he doesn’t care what kind of image he left about PCT. PCT is not “protection” theory as we can see also from use of terms in Bills literature. He maybe used “protection” in 1% cases (where maybe something can make ilussion of protection) but usually (in 99% of cases) he used other terms like cancel, counteraction, compensation, opposing, adjustment etc. Any human that knows a little about science will use something that is 99% sure.
- mistake : Behavior as control
HB : Warren and Rick didn’t mention in article that they got idea for Carver/Scheier misrepresentations of PCT on CSGnet. I was the first to mention their misrepresentations because I mediated between Bill Powers and Carver/Scheier". I even informed APA about that.
WM/RM :
Nonetheless, Carver and Scheier misrepresented some fundamental features of PCT (e.g., by proposing that it is behavior rather than perception that is controlled).
HB : How exactly Carver/Scheier “misrepresented some fundamental features of PCT” ??? Where can we find that in their literature ? If what Warren and Rick are writing about Carver/Scheier is true then I don’t understand how Warren and Rick could use the same fundamental failure.
WM/RM :
Behavior as Control…
HB : It’s subtitle. Behavior is not controlled. Beside this nonsense there are many other contradictions in the text.
- mistake : “controlled variable in environment”
WM/RM : The controlled variable in this diagram is the variable aspect of the environment that is prevented from varying by the control system’s output.
HB : It’s not that “controlled variable” is prevented from varying by the system output, but organism is varying control under effects of disturbances and in order to maintain homeostasis and thus varying actions.
Again Martin did it right :
MT : There is one overwhelming fact about life: to survive, any organism must in some way stabilize its essential internal chemistry in the face of disturbances from a turbulent outer world. At least one
major theory proposes that the species that survived the mass extinction that ended the Cretaceous were precisely those best able to achieve this stabilization in the face of large disturbances. Our
bodies are thermodynamically unstable, and decay away as soon as we cease to act to counter the influences that would destroy us. Every living thing has ancestors all of whom behaved so that
they stabilized their internal chemistry at least long enough to propagate their genes.
HB : How can anybody wrote something like Warren and Rick did, knowing that nowhere in Bills’ literature we could find such a diagram with “controlled variable” in outside environment. So original PCT theory was obviously neglected. How such articles can be exposed on such a delicate PCT places. Rick is contaminating with his RCT everywhere he can.
- mistake : “canonical principle”
WM/RM :
If the system is properly designed so that the error drives the output in a way that pushes the controlled variable, and thus the perception of the controlled variable, toward the goal specification, then the goal result will be produced.
HB : How can be generally “controlled variable” outside pushed and perceived to the goal specifications ??? How people perceive control outside ?
Bill P :
Our only view of the real world is our view of the neural signals that represent it inside our own brains. When we act to make a perception change to our more desireble state – when we make the perception of the glass change from »on the table« to »near the mouth« - we have no direct knowledge of what we are doing to the reality that is the origin of our neural signal; we know only the final result, how the result looks, feels, smells, sounds, tastes, and so forth…It means that we produce actions that alter the world of perception…
HB : It’s control of perception not control of outside state with control of behavior so that “controlled variable” and (canonically) perception of the controlled variable could be pushed toward the goal state. In Warrens and Ricks article it’s quite obvious that “controlled variable” outside which is “pushed” toward the “goal specifications” or something outside is controlled to goal states and perceived.
Bill P : OUTPUT FUNCTION : The portion of a system that converts the magnitude or state of a signal inside the system into a corresponding set of effects on the immediate environment of the system
Bill P (LCS III):…the output function shown in it’s own box represents the means this system has for causing changes in it’s environment.
Bill P (LCS III):
FEED-BACK FUNCTION : The box represents the set of physical laws, properties, arrangements, linkages, by which the action of this system feeds-back to affect its own input, the controlled variable. That’s what feed-back means : it’s an effect of a system’s output on it’s own input.
HB : Generally controlled variable is “system’s input” not output. Generally goal states are specified inside and are controlled inside. Mostly psychologist are achieving goals in outer environment and so are Warren and Rick. I assume they are psychologists.
- mistake : wrong diagram
HB : There i no Bills’ citation about PCT. Just some Warrens and Rick phylosophy. And the most important thing again is that diagram is wrong, I don’t know how did they got tha idea to place wrong diagram into PCT article ??? No wonder that many others got wrong impression what is right PCT diagram and what is not.
HB : What kind of charade is this ? Where in Powers literature can you find such a diagram. This is what I was talking about last time with Martin. PCT originality is missing. What Warren and Rick showed as general PCT diagram is a falsification or fake.
This is right PCT diagram. Why is not in the Warrens and Ricks article ?
HB : I think this is a critical moment whether PCT members will represent PCT or their personal oppinon about PCT which is obviosuly wrong.
There are so many confussions in Warrens and Ricks’ article and wrong statements that my suggestion about article (Warren, Rick) is that it should be removed from so exposed place where PCT is presented.
It would be much better if Martins’ article would be the first in line. Or some Bills’ article about history of PCT and psychology published. Also Kents artcile (2011) could be used.
Best,
Boris
P.S. I think that Warrens’ and Ricks’ article should be immediatelly removed form anywhere where PCT is mentioned.